Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA E98-0004 - CITY OF TUKWILA / PUBLIC WORKS - INTERURBAN BRIDGEINTERURBAN BRIDGE WIDENING, NEW TRAIL BRIDGE & TRAIL EXTENSION 6701 FORT DENT WAY E98-0004 STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY Northwest Regional Office, 3190 - 160th Ave S.E. • Bellevue, Washington 98008-5452 • (425) 649-7000 July 20, 1998 Robin Tischmak Tukwila Public Works 6300 Southcenter Blvd suite 100 Tukwila WA 98188 Dear Applicant: tin ; ..^ it 1iij= Re: City of Tukwila Permit # L98-0009 TUKWILA, CITY OF, PUBLIC WORKS DEPT - Applicant Shoreline Substantial Development Permit # 1998 -NW -10102 The subject Shoreline Management Substantial Development Permit, to widen existing Interurban Av S bridge to provide turn‘lane to 405, and construct new pedestrian bridge over Green River and add 1,900' to Interurban Trail system, has been filed with this office by the City of Tukwila on July 09, 1998. The development authorized by the subject permit may NOT begin until the end of the 21 -day appeal period, July 30, 1998. The Shorelines Hearings Board will notify you by letter if this permit is appealed. Other federal, state, and local permits may be required in addition to the subject permit. If this permit is NOT appealed, this letter constitutes the Department of Ecology's final notification of action on this permit. Sincerely, Alice Kelly, Shorelands Specialist Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program AMK: amk SDP.DOC cc: Steve Lancaster, City of Tukwila r AFFIDAVIT I, S)2,poJ6 NAL Notice []Notice of of OBoard of Packet []Board of Packet Public Hearing Public Meeting Adjustment Agenda Appeals Agenda Planning Commission Agenda Packet fl Short Subdivision Agenda Packet O Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit JJShoreline Management Permit OF DISTRIBUTION hereby declare that: /Determination of Non- --significance on- `significance ❑ Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance fl Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice ❑ Notice of Action fl Official Notice 111 Other fl Other was mailed to each of the following addresses on TU 0E 0831 I'M ten At Leo flea- e-cr OP -+J �-o 0-1)P-exclzo K c Dfu. #6.1) -. ucs. -1.0w ►sti P1.3 Cre cPa &it1 0 1AU-S• goo os Q6)• Sco. Re --o , L cgods-moo 2sj, L 191055-1A9 Name of Project6776t OeT (/Ji Signature File Number Eq 0 -C ci-t U- l8r U600 1 AFFIDAVIT OF 1, SJzAi.0e, Go(41.., O Notice of Public Hearing Li Notice of Public Meeting LIBoard of Adjustment Agenda Packet OBoard of Appeals Agenda Packet O Planning Commission Agenda Packet fl Short Subdivision Agenda Packet O Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit LIShoreline Management Permit DISTRIBUTION hereby declare that: Determination of Non- significance LI Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice Notice of Action Official Notice Other Other was mailed to each of the following addresses on -s. J CEJ j —, o"k Name of Project(�ir"7k 1 TO (2_1- boy File Number E- (g-OULJ 1 L e -0009 Signature GI . • • CITY OF TUKWILA DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (DNS) DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: INTERURBAN BRIDGE WIDENING. NEW PED BRIDGE. TRAIL EXTENSION (ADDITIONAL 1900 LINEAR FEET) PROPONENT: CITY OF TUKWILA PUBLIC WORKS LOCATION OF PROPOSAL. INCLUDING STREET ADDRESS IF ANY: ADDRESS: 6701 FORT DENT PARCEL NO: 295490-0421 SEC/TWN/RNG:-SW"24/23/4 LEAD AGENCY :% ! CI,TYiF TUKWILA FILE NO: E98-0004 The City hasdetermined that ,the proposal does not have a probable significant' adverse impact; on,'the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is -not required under RCW 43.21c.030(2)(c) . This decision was made after review of. _ a completed environmental checklist and other inforniationon file with the lead -agency. This information is available to the public on-reouest. r ' ********'***************************,************k*******k*.***k*************** This determination \is final "and_ -sinned this iblw day of _ 0ba 199 Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official City of Tukwila, (206) 431-3670 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA '\98168 Copies of the procedures for SEPA appeals are available with the Department of Community Development Clay of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director MEMORANDUM To: Steve Lancaster From: Deborah Ritter Date: June 10, 1998 Re: E98-0004 City of Tukwila Public Works Project Widening of Interurban Avenue South Bridge, Construction of New Pedestrian Bridge and 1,900 Foot Addition to Interurban Trail System 6701 Fort Dent Way Project Description: This SEPA review is for the widening of the existing Interurban Avenue South bridge (by 16 feet), the construction of a new pedestrian bridge over the Green River and the addition of 1,900 linear feet of trail to be added to the Interurban Trail System. Agencies with Jurisdiction: None. Summary of Primary Impacts: • Earth The riverbank at this location is steep, containing slopes which are approximately 67%. A layer of fill exists over the site consisting of silt, sand, gravel and cobbles and ranging from 2 to 12 feet in thickness. Below the fill layer, soft to medium stiff clayey silt is present (only along the north side of the river) with a maximum thickness of 26 feet. Dense silty sand exists below this silt layer on the north side of the river and also beneath the fill layer on the south side of the river. The sand layer varies from 65 to 110 feet in thickness. Weathered sandstone and siltstone lies below the sand layer but only on the north side of the river. Structural fill will be required in the following amounts: 2,000 cubic yards of gravel and topsoil for both the pedestrian bridge and new trail segment and 280 cubic yards of fill for the Interurban Avenue South bridge. To prevent erosion, 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 E98-0004 City of Tukwila Public Works Project Interurban Avenue South Bridge Widening, Pedestrian Bridge and Trail June 10, 1998 Page 2 • • rip -rap will be placed around 4 pile supported piers of the Interurban Avenue South bridge and around 2 pile supported piers of the pedestrian bridge. An erosion control plan will be employed during construction. • Air Dust and exhaust emissions will be generated during construction, with watering as necessary to control dust. • Water The bridge widening and construction of the pedestrian bridge will occur over the Green River which has a Class A water quality designation. Permanent bridge pier supports for the widening of the Interurban Avenue bridge will be located above the ordinary high-water mark, but within the 100 year floodplain. Abutments for the pedestrian bridge will be located outside the 100 year floodplain but within 200 feet of the river. Portions of the Interurban Avenue bridge approach roads will be within 200 feet of the river. Construction within the River Environment will meet the requirements of the State Department of Ecology. Trail stormwater runoff will sheet flow into surrounding areas and will eventually reach the Green River. Stormwater from the bridge widening will be collected into the existing storm drainage system for the roadway. King County Surface Water Design Standards will be used for the design of any new or modified surface water drainage facilities for the project. The project will increase the amount of impervious surface area which may increase road runoff. This stormwater runoff could include pollutants such as oil, grease, suspended and settleable sediments, metals, organic compounds and oxygen consuming substances. • Plants Blackberry, brush and various grasses are currently found along the riverbank. Some of this vegetation will be removed for the construction of pile supported piers (two piers for the pedestrian bridge and 4 piers for the Interurban Avenue South bridge). After construction completion, the small areas disturbed by pier placement will be reseeded. E98-0004 City of Tukwila Public Works Project Interurban Avenue South Bridge Widening, Pedestrian Bridge and Trail June 10, 1998 Page 3 Additionally, approximately 28 trees will be removed to permit widening of the Interurban Avenue South bridge. The area will be regraded and hydroseeded and then planted with shrubs (or if possible, trees) to provide visual screening for the proposed restaurant on the adjacent property. The plantings will be the responsibility of the restaurant as part of its permit requirements. The area surrounding the pedestrian trail extension will be landscaped with such plants as Raywood Ash, Douglas Fir, Western Red Cedar, California Way Myrtle, Smooth Sumac, White Rockrose, Oregon Grape and Boston Ivy. • Animals Northwest Chinook Salmon are found in the Duwamish River and may be listed as a threatened species in 1999. The river is part of a migration route for anadromous fish. The site is located within the Pacific Flyway, a migration path for various waterfowl. Construction within the Ordinary High Water Mark will meet the requirements of the State Department of Fish and Wildlife. • Energy/Natural Resources Lighting for the Interurban Avenue bridge will be electric. The widening of the Interurban Avenue bridge will permit the addition of an HOV bypass lane. This lane has the potential to promote fuel economy by reducing the time cars spend in queues and lessening congestion. The pedestrian trail (which will also be used by bicycles) may reduce fuel consumption by increasing the number of people bicycling to work. • Environmental Health Noise generated by construction equipment will occur on a short term basis. The hours of construction will comply with the City's noise ordinance. • Land/Shoreline Use The site is in the Shoreline Overlay Zone and the current King County Shoreline Master Program designation of the site is Urban. Interurban Avenue South is classified as a principal arterial. There is no underlying zone district for this E98-0004 City of Tukwila Public Works Project Interurban Avenue South Bridge Widening, Pedestrian Bridge and Trail June 10, 1998 Page 4 • street and associated bridge as it is a right-of-way. Interstate 405 is a six -lane roadway classified as an interstate. The land within a 500 foot radius of the site is zoned Regional Commercial/Mixed Use to the northeast (north bank of river), Commercial/Light Industrial to the southeast (south bank of river), Medium Density Residential to the north- northwest and Low Density Residential to the west-southwest. Provisions will be made for the modification and extension of water and sewer mains to facilitate the future development of this area in compliance with the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan. Housing No housing is proposed nor will any residential structures be removed. Aesthetics The proposal is not subject to Board of Review design review and standards. The new portion (widened area) of the Interurban Avenue South bridge will match the design of the existing bridge. Disturbed areas along the river will be revegetated. • Light and Glare It is not anticipated that any additional light or glare will be produced by the bridge widening project. Some existing street lamps may be relocated. • Recreation The interurban Trail is a multi -use trail linking King and Pierce Counties. A part of this trail (the Green River Trail) follows the Green River within the city limits of Tukwila. The proposal for a 1,900 foot segment will extend and complete a missing link in this trail system between Fort Dent Way and S.W. Grady Way. Fort Dent Park is a major recreational park with several types of sports fields. A portion of the trail construction relies on the progress of an adjacent development. Construction of the adjacent development is scheduled to E98-0004 City of Tukwila Public Works Project Interurban Avenue South Bridge Widening, Pedestrian Bridge and Trail June 10, 1998 Page 5 • • proceed prior to the construction of the project described herein (File E98-0004). Should construction of the adjacent development fall behind schedule, a temporary trail connection may be constructed (as illustrated in Figure 1 of the attached SEPA checklist). Historic and Cultural Preservation No known places or landmarks. Transportation Several existing streets serve the site: Interurban Avenue South, S.W. Grady Way, Southcenter Boulevard, Interstate 405, West Valley Highway, Fort Dent Way and Monster Road. No new roads will be built as part of the project. The proposed widening of the Interurban Avenue South bridge will reduce automobile congestion. This will be accomplished by creating an additional lane to allow HOV's turning onto the southbound 1-405 on-ramp to bypass the general purpose traffic queued in the existing northbound left -turn lane. • Public Services Increased maintenance will be required in association with the new pedestrian bridge, associated trail and bridge widening. • Utilities The project will not increase demand on the utility systems. Provisions will be made for the modification and extension of water and sewer mains to facilitate the future development of this area in compliance with the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan and the Tukwila Capital Improvements Program. Recommendation: Determination of Non -Significance. • • 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. Yes. The trail bridge lands on the site of the proposed Family Fun Center which has applied for permits. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Permit Required Shoreline Permit Flood Zone Control Permit Joint Aquatic Resource Permits Application (JARPA) Review Agency City of Tukwila City of Tukwila U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Washington State Dept. of Ecology Washington State Dept. of Fish & Wildlife Washington State Dept. of Natural Resources 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. Section E requires a complete description of the objectives and alternatives of your proposal and should not be summarized here. This proposed project would widen the Interurban Avenue Bridge over the Green River to provide an HOV-only northbound left -turn lane onto the 1-405 southbound on-rampodS related tility modifications 0 connections. The proposal also would construct a new pedestrian bridge over the Green River, and would lengthen the Interurban Trail from Fort Dent Way to SW Grady Way adding approximately 1,900 feet of new trail to the Interurban Trail system (this addition with another planned segment connecting to it would complete this part of the trail system). The widening project lies within the limited access area of the 1-405 Green River Interchange. Interurban Avenue is classified as a Principal Arterial within the City of Tukwila. One proposed benefit of the widening is to provide a travel time savings to HOVs turning onto the southbound on-ramp to 1-405. There is an HOV bypass lane on the ramp, but northbound HOVs on Interurban Avenue back up into the northbound left -turn queue with general purpose traffic during peak periods. This project would allow HOVs to bypass this queue. A second proposed benefit of the project is to extend the Interurban Trail from Fort Dent Way to SW Grady Way, part of the Interurban Trail system. This would complete a missing link in the Interurban Trail. A portion assumed of the trail construction relies CW p_rlogress 0 adjacent de -761141111114/ that the development will construct the trail work pilo to this project's schedule If the duel'Wpment falls behind schedule, a tempo-'_ raryltrail[conn_e_ction�mav�be�constr�ucted!� See figure 1* The total project area is about 10.3 acres. 96006 \ Reports \ Sepa (10/31/97) \ jc 3 • • 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. The project is located in central Tukwila (Sections 23 and 24, Township 23N, and Range 4E, W.M.). The project area includes Interurban Avenue from 1-405 to 880 feet northwest of Fort Dent Way. The proposed bicycle/pedestrian trail will extend from 1-405, along SW Grady, to east of the proposed Family Fun Center, and then along the Green River. The trail will then cross the river just east of Interurban Avenue where it will connect up with an existing trail segment just south of Fort Dent Way (figure 1). 13. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive? Yes. 96006 \ Reports \ Sepa (10/31/97) \ jc 4 TUKWILA PARKWAY rw Legend Project Roadway Area Proposed Brldg. Proposed Trail Area 100 Year Flood Boundry TEMPAR14.34 City of Tukwila Figure 1 Project Vicinity • Evaluation for None. 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. Increased maintenance associated with new trail and bridges would be required. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. None are proposed. 16. Utilities a. Underline utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. Storm Drainage b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Storm drainage would need to be modified in some cases. V1later and,sewer mains may be modified_/' extended'asmec'essary in) compli'ance'with th&C(ty's=Compre ensh ive Plan: Power poles would need to be relocated out of the new trail. Phone lines in the existing bridge would need to be relocated. 96006 \ Reports \ Sepa (10/31/97) \ jc 18 Agency Use Only • E. CURRENT ZONING OF PROPERTY: City of Tukwila and Washington State Department of Transportation Right -of -Way and Commercial/L,ight Industrial Use. F. PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY: Street Right -of -Way G. SHORELINE ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGNATION: Urban - Open Space Environment H. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF SURROUNDING LAND USES: (Within 1,000 feet in all directions from the development site.) A large portion of land is Washington State Right -of -Way for SR 405 and railroad Right- of-way. Commercial buildings and light industry atfort Dent Park. Some area is used for residential purposes. Green River multi -use trail system. 1. TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST & FAIR MARKET VALUE of the proposed development: (Include additional future phases of development contemplated but not included in current proposal.) $1.5miI-$2.OmiI J. BRIEF NARRATIVE DESCRIBING PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS: The project would widen the Interurban Avenue Bridge over the Green River to provide an HOV-only northbound left -turn lane onto the 1-405 southbound on-ramp Vin' dela ed.`u'tiiity:rnod`ications / coy"" nn €tions The proposal also would construct a new pedestrian bridge over the Green River. and would lengthen the Interurban Trail from Fort Dent Way to SW Grady Way adding approximately 1.900 feet of new trail to the Interurban Trail system. ?Part ofhWrtr iiJ! Rw',iililtI constructedili an'adjacent deuelopnient; If his%demelopmenf.falWbehind schedule.:a'tetnporaryatraiil Fo necfion maylbe constructed.. K. PORTION OF PROPOSED ACTIVITY ALREADY COMPLETED: (If any portion or phase of the proposed activity is already completed on subject site, indicate month and year of completion.) None L. PROPOSED STARTING DATE: Summer 1998 . ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY: Spring 1999 . (If project will be constructed in stages, indicate dates:) M. TYPE AND EXTENT OF RECONSTRUCTION OF RIVERBANK (IF ANY) AND PROPOSED RIVERBANK VEGETATION: NQ reconstruction is anticipated. N. IF PROPOSED ACTIVITY TO CAUSE FLOODING OR DRAINING OF WETLANDS, INDICATE IMPACTED AREA (acres): N/A SSDPMT.DOC 6/10/98 4 MEMO TO: Robin Tischmak FROM: Deb Ritter DATE: April 29, 1998 RE: Bridge Widening and Pedestrian Trail Interurban Avenue South L98-0009 (Shoreline) E98-0004 (SEPA) Follow-up Questions I'm working on a memo which will recommend approval (by Steve) of the Shoreline Development permit. I won't finalize the memo for a while (since we are waiting for more information) but I do have some questions in the interim. As part of my memo to Steve, I have to demonstrate that the project satisfies the criteria in TMC 18.44.110. I have some questions in connection with that criteria. Please provide me with the requested information at your earliest convenience. 1. Under TMC 18.44.110(5) no effluent shall be discharged into the river which exceeds the water quality classification established for that portion of the river. Will effluent be discharged? Is the river classified Class A? 2. Under TMC 18.44.110(7), wildlife habitat in and along the river should be protected. Since several trees will be removed during construction we need to document what kind of landscaping will replace them. Under TMC 18.44.130(2)(c), reconstructed areas of the riverbank have to be landscaped using certain types of vegetation. I don't have any information regarding the proposed landscaping for the riverbank but will need it to respond to the criteria. 3. Under TMC 18.44.110(15), removal of cottonwoods in the which are 12 inches or more in diameter need a Tree Clearing permit. However, it appears that the bridge widening might be exempt under TMC 18.54.050(f) (see my 4-17-98 memo to you). Could you tell me what portions of the TMC Public Works is relying upon to allow removal of vegetation along the riverbank? MEMO TO: Robin lischmak FROM: Deb Ritter DATE: April 17, 1998 RE: Bridge Widening and Pedestrian Trail Interurban Avenue South L98-0009 (Shoreline) E98-00+)4 (SEPA) Removal of Existing Trees As you known, the bridge will be widened approximately 16 feet (within the WSDOT right-of-way) requiring the removal of .;everal existing trees. Per TMC 18.44.110(4) (General Shoreline Regulations): There :•hall be no disruption of existing trees or vegetation within the river environmental unless necessary for public safety or flood control, or if allowed as part of an approved shoreline substantial development permit. Per TMC 18.44.110(15) (General Shoreline Regulations): Notwithstanding any provisions of this Code to the contrary, removal of any cottonwood tree within the river environment or the low impact environment, which tree is 12 inches or greater in diameter as measured 4.5 feet above grade, shall be subject to the requirements of TMC Chapter 18.54, Tree Regulations. Per TMC 18.54.050(2)(f) (Tree Regulations. Permit - Exempt Activities): [The following activities are exempt from the application of this chapter and do not require a Tree Clearing Permit: On sites within a sensitive area, or sensitive area buffer, or shoreline zone] Construction and maintenance of streets and utilities within City -approved rights-of-way and easements. If you are aware of other ordinances which provide Public Works with the authority to remove the existing trees in the WSDOT right-of-way, please let me know. cc: Jack Puce FILLicLIN-SEE VDRAWINGS MATCHLINE-SEE SHEET L-1 EXISTING TREES ..LOCATED BETWEENFILL LINE AND SIDEWALK .SHALL BE • REMOVED. SEE CML DRAWINGS. • tum • NORTH LEGEND EXISTING TREE -SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS. EXISTING TREES ARE PREDOMINATELY ALDER SPECIES. • Hough Beck & Baird Inc. LAK•SCAPC AR6i1CCTURC VAS.: Dak.g • 0 30' • =:at_ -SCALE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING STREETS WATER SEWER PARKS ZU/LDING Eifa IZESIERIVZI iiii111111.11 'iron *. • • 4r0) d INTERURBAN AVENUE BRIDGE •LL-% I 111,....41011 h...., 11 PLANTING PLAN - MEMO TO: Robin Tischmak FROM: Deb Ritter DATE: April 17, 1998 RE: Bridge Widening and Pedestrian Trail Interurban Avenue South L98-0009 (Shoreline) E98-0004 (SEPA) Substantive Review Comments There are no substantive review comments from Police, Public Works (Joanna) or Gary Schulz. Planning Comments 1. Please provide me with the final geotechnical report from Hart Crowser. 2. Please see my 4/17/98 memo regarding removal of existing trees in the WSDOT right-of-way. Parks Comments As you know, I met briefly with Don Williams in Parks to discuss his comments. Although Don has already provided these comments to the consultant (verbally), I am restating them (as I understand them) for the file. 1. There should be a 2 foot wide gravel shoulder along both sides of the pedestrian trail (except that portion along the retaining wall). 2. The swale (inside the loop of the pedestrian trail) will be planted with wet tolerant plants. 3. The proposed trees to be located in this swale should be replaced with shrubs. 4. The sidewalk should be 8 feet wide (minimum) at the connector. 5. Some of the proposed trees along the pedestrian trail should be substituted with selections that are more suitable for bike and pedestrian traffic. The location of the proposed trees should be altered slightly to accommodate this traffic. 6. A "bubble" should be shown on the trail which will contain a bench and trashcan. 7. Bark will be used at first as a groundcover. As funds become available for plants and maintenance, this bark will be replaced by drought tolerant groundcover (such as salal, mahonia, etc.). Once the consultant has incorporated these revisions into the plans, please provide me with two sets. After the last review by Public Works, Don and myself, I'll need several copies of the "final" sets plus PMT's. At that point (late April -early May) I can submit a request for a SEPA determination to Steve. • AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTIO,N hereby declare that: Noticc,, of Public Hearing [1Notice of Public 'Meeting• 111 Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet t *arc: of Appeals Agenda Packct LIlanning Commission Agenda 1 2 • Packot short Subdivjsjon Agenda Packct Liliotice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit 1_Shoreline Management Permit I Determination of Non- significance Mitigated Determination of. Nonsignificance [—Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice Notice of Action Official Notice : . Lther &(0 ---Lek, ApAtoi 61A Other 14. . was ma2:.led to each of the following addresses on eik_tbze4L-1 Namu of Project 'LC Joilc Nuiaber 06- oc-o1 coot+ eignature wo City of Tukwila Department of Community Development John W Rants, Mayor Steve Lancaster, Direc:or NOTICE OF APPLICATION DATED APRIL 1, 1998 The following applications have been submitted to the City of Tukwila Department of Community Development for review and decision. APPLICANT: LOCATION: FILE NUMBERS: PROPOSAL: OTHER REQUIRED PERMITS: Public Works Department, City of Tukwila 6701 Fort Dent Way, Tukwila, Washington E98-0004 (SEPA) L98-0009 (Shoreline Substantial Development) To widen the Interurban Avenue Bridge over the Green River, to construct a new pedestrian bridge over the Green River and to add a segment of new trail to the Interurban Trail System. Hydraulic Project Approval, Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife Joint Aquatic Resource Permits, Army Corp of Engineers Flood Zone Control Permit, City of Tukwila JARPA Application, Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington State Department of Ecology and Washington State Department of Natural Resources These files can be reviewed at the Department of Community Development, 6300 Southcenter Blvd., #100, Tukwila, WA. Please call (206) 431-3670 to ensure that the file(s) will be available. OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT You can submit comments on this application. You must submit your comments in writing to the Department of Community Development by 5:00 p.m. on May 1, 1998. If you have questions about this proposal contact Deborah Ritter, the Planner in charge of this file at (206) 431- 3663. Anyone who submits written comments will become parties of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 e (206) 431-3670 m Fax -(2O6) 4 ( ) 31-,36ri,S March 18, 1998 • City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION Robin Tischmak City of Tukwila Public Works Department 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 RE: E98-0004 Environmental Checklist L98-0009 Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Dear Robin, Your application for construction of a new pedestrian bridge across the Green River, construction of a link in the Interurban Trail, and widening of the existing Interurban Avenue Bridge has been found to be complete on March 18, 1998 for the purposes of meeting state mandated time requirements. The next step is for you to install the notice board on the site within 14 days of the date of this letter. You received information on how to install the sign with your application packet. If you need another set of those instructions, please call me. Once you have notified me that the notice board has been installed I will post it with a laminated copy of the Notice of Application and the comment period will start. After installing the sign with the laminated notice, you need to return the signed Affidavit of Posting to the our office. This determination of complete application does not preclude the ability of the City to require that you submit additional plans or information, if in our estimation such information is necessary to ensure the project meets the substantive requirements of the City or to complete the review process. This notice of complete application applies only to the permits identified above. It is your responsibility to apply for and obtain all necessary permits issued by other agencies. /.7nn 41/1/1 no 100 . MnA1 A?1.0A711 . r .. /9/1A) A?1_?/AC • • I will be contacting you soon to discuss this project. If you wish to speak to me sooner, feel free to call me at 433-7141. Sincerely, Nora Gierloff Associate Planner cc: Gary Barnett, Public Works Don Williams, Parks Department Gary Schulz, Urban Environmentalist 11, CITY OWUKWILA Departmen of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431-3670 R C BV ED [VIi R 02 '1998 COMMUNITY PPk/pa fPMMFNT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (SEPA) APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS To submit for SEPA review, provide the items listed above to the Planning Division at 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Room 100. 8 copies of the completed and signed environmental checklist. You may use the City's pre-printed form or you may re -type the questions on your computer. If you choose to re -type the form into your computer, be sure to do so accurately. Mistakes or omissions will increase the review time. 2( 8 sets of the full sizelans needed to clearly describe the proposed action. 3 -FULL s�� 5 8/2.: X 11 Nfr One PMT set of plans reduced to 8.5" x 11". ❑ Four copies of supporting studies. ti One copy of the checklist application. Ly One set of mailing labels for all properties 500' from the subject property. (See address label worksheet.) N /A ❑ $325 filing fee. The checklist contains several pages of questions which you are asked to answer. It covers a comprehensive set of topics. As a result, several of the questions may not apply to your project. If a particular question does not apply, simply write N/A undemeath. HOWEVER, be aware that many questions apply despite appearing not to. Care needs to be taken in reading and answering the questions to ensure the appropriate response is provided. It is important that accurate and dear information be provided. You may not know all of the answers. Answer each question to the best of your ability. If we find an answer to be insufficient, the City may contact you to ask for more information. Sometimes, after reviewing the checklist, the City will ask you provide additional studies or information. Commonly requested information includes traffic analysis, site topography, soils studies and tree surveys. CITY OF UKWILA Department -5f Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431-3670 SEPA APPLICATION CHECKLI ST FOR STAFF USE ONLY Planner:' File Number: e - oOD Receipt. Number: Wig- c2OcS Cross-reference files: L t ' 00 Applicantnotified of incomplete:application:-,, Applicant notified:of complete,'application:. Notice of application, issues A. NAME OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: .F- NTE ''lamPF.J AVE S 17 I D(v E coI DEN I AJ 6r IIJTE2U(a P -N 11-.A- L A IL- IcC.,te B. LOCATION OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: (address and accessors parcel niumber(s)) .Tsri-E P U I? 8Pt J Me. S F o M - L1aS -To Ap pox . g06 FEET 2443°410 13 , 242344t017 - ND K:rt-k OF OCA bei (PAY -FAIvIt Li Fut,/ CeLrrE 51T€ Quarter: SV_/ Section: ZL/ Township: 2-31\1 Range: q E (This information may be found on your tax statement) C. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: tuba. 4 The E (tSTIN(, IuTE?ur-BA-0 AVE .i -ibt9tE ASA CcNSTuc- A TIM L (W 11cb E) cOorJ€ CTio0 From r -q5 -to Pr. bWroi D. APPLICANT: NAME: v 1-r? OF U t �—tT ADDRESS: CO Z©D SOUT{-k C. f g BOO L E\J AIE-D (zo(o) 4 33 -- ®17 9 PHONE: SIGNATURE: DATE: CITY OF TUKWILA - 6300 outhcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Telephone: (206) 431-3670 ADDRESS LABEL REQUIREMENTS The City of Tukwila requires that neighboring residents, businesses and property owners be notified of certain types of pending applications in order to encourage citizen participation in the land use process. Applicants are therefore required to submit the following materials: • Mailing labels listing the owners of record for all property within 500 feet of the boundaries (not the center) of the applicant's site (2 sets or 3 sets if SEPA review is required). • Mailing labels listing the residents or businesses of any property within 500 feet of the property if they are different from the land owners (2 sets or 3 sets if SEPA review is, required). • One copy of an assessor's map(s) showing the boundaries of the subject property and the 500 foot radius. 123N1 ST Property owner names and addresses can be obtained from the King County Department of Assessment located on the 7th floor of the King County Administration Building, Room 700, 500 Fourth Avenue, Seattle. To compile the information required: • Obtain the assessor's map(s) which contain(s) your property and all neighboring properties within 500 feet (See example diagram). You may use the maps on file in the Assessor's Office or purchase a set from the King County Department of Public Works Map Counter on the 9th floor of the Administration Building. Purchased maps must be ordered several hours in advance of the time you would like to pick them up. • After securing the assessor's maps, obtain a "Real Estate Inquiry Batch Request Sheet" from the Department of Assessment. On this form provide the tax account number for each affected property as shown on the assessor's map(s) and submit the completed form to the Department of Assessment with the appropriate fee. Applicants can request that the information be printed in mailing label form or on standard paper. To obtain occupants/resident/business names and addresses, consult the Kroll maps located in the Tukwila Department of Community Development and then visit the site to determine resident names and unit numbers. The information on the mailing labels may refer to "Resident" or "Tenant", with the proper mailing address, if the specific name is unknown. • ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Purpose of Checklist: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. Instruction for Applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. The City uses this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply". Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the City staff can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attached any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The City may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. Use of checklist for nonproject proposals: Nonproject proposals refer to actions which are different or broader than a single site specific development project, such as plans, policies and programs. Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply". In addition, complete the supplemental sheet for nonproject actions (part D). For nonproject actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project", "applicant", and "property or site" should read as "proposal", "proposer", and "affected geographic area", respectively. EC JVED MAR 0 2 1998 COMMUNnY DEVELOPMENT Environmental Checklist INTERURBAN BRIDGES Tukwila, Washington Prepared for City of Tukwila Prepared by ENTRANCO 10900 NE 8th Street, Suite 300 Bellevue, Washington 98004 (206) 454-5600 February 1998 • • ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST CITY OF TUKWILA PURPOSE OF CHECKLIST: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. INSTRUCTIONS FOR APPLICANTS: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply". Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. USE OF CHECKLIST FOR NONPROJECT PROPOSALS: Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply". IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (Part D). For nonproject actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project", "applicant", and "property or site" should be read as "proposal", "proposer", and "affected geographic area," respectively. 960061 Reports 1 Sepa (10/31/97)1 jc 1 • . A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: The project is divided into two elements: 1) Interurban Avenue Bridge Widening - Green River; and 2) Interurban Trail and Trail Bridge - Green River 2. Name of applicant: City of Tukwila, Public Works Department 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Robin Tischmak 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 (206) 433-0179 4. Date checklist prepared: February 19, 1998 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Tukwila 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Construction is expected to begin in Summer 1998 and be completed in Spring 1999. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. No. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal: A soils report has been prepared by Hart Crowser, Inc. Interurban Avenue South Bridge Widening Traffic Analysis Report (Entranco 1995) Bicycle/Pedestrian Trail Alternative Route Study Technical Memorandum (Entranco 1995) Interurban Avenue South Bridge Widening 2015 Design Volumes (Entranco 1995) Interurban Avenue South Bridge Widening and Interurban Trail and Trail Bridge Design Report (Entranco 1997) 96006 \ Reports \ Sepa (10/31/97)1 jc 2 • • 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. Yes. The trail bridge lands on the site of the proposed Family Fun Center which has applied for permits. 10. List any govemment approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Permit Required Shoreline Permit Flood Zone Control Permit Joint Aquatic Resource Permits Application (JARPA) Review Agency City of Tukwila City of Tukwila U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Washington State Dept. of Ecology Washington State Dept. of Fish & Wildlife Washington State Dept. of Natural Resources 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. Section E requires a complete description of the objectives and alternatives of your proposal and should not be summarized here. This proposed project would widen the Interurban Avenue Bridge over the Green River to provide an HOV-only northbound left -turn lane onto the 1-405 southbound on-ramp and related utility modifications / connections. The proposal also would construct a new pedestrian bridge over the Green River, and would lengthen the Interurban Trail from Fort Dent Way to SW Grady Way adding approximately 1,900 feet of new trail to the Interurban Trail system (this addition with another planned segment connecting to it would complete this part of the trail system). The widening project lies within the limited access area of the 1-405 Green River Interchange. Interurban Avenue is classified as a Principal Arterial within the City of Tukwila. One proposed benefit of the widening is to provide a travel time savings to HOVs turning onto the southbound on-ramp to 1-405. There is an HOV bypass lane on the ramp, but northbound HOVs on Interurban Avenue back up into the northbound left -turn queue with general purpose traffic during peak periods. This project would allow HOVs to bypass this queue. A second proposed benefit of the project is to extend the Interurban Trail from Fort Dent Way to SW Grady Way, part of the Interurban Trail system. This would complete a missing link in the Interurban Trail. A portion of the trail construction relies on progress of an adjacent development. It is assumed that the development will construct the trail work prior to this project's schedule. If the development falls behind schedule, a temporary trail connection may be constructed. See figure 1. The total project area is about 10.3 acres. 96006 \ Reports \ Sepa (10/31/97)1 jc 3 • • 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. The project is located in central Tukwila (Sections 23 and 24, Township 23N, and Range 4E, W.M.). The project area includes Interurban Avenue from 1-405 to 880 feet northwest of Fort Dent Way. The proposed bicycle/pedestrian trail will extend from 1-405, along SW Grady, to east of the proposed Family Fun Center, and then along the Green River. The trail will then cross the river just east of Interurban Avenue where it will connect up with an existing trail segment just south of Fort Dent Way (figure 1). 13. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive? Yes. 96006 \ Reports \ Sepa (10/31/97) \ jc 4 TUKWILA PARKWAY rw City of Tukwila Legend Project Roadway Area Proposed Bridge Proposed Trail Area 100 Year Hood Boundry • • • TEMPoRkR'( TteAIt- Figure 1 Project Vicinity • • Evaluation for Agency Use Only B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (underline one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? The steepest slopes are on the banks of the Green River, which have roughly a 67 percent slope. c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. The soil survey for King County (SCS 1973) describes the soils in the project vicinity as consisting of: Urban land - fill materials. Four distinct soil units observed in the test borings are: Fill, Loose to Dense Sands, Silt, and Sandstone. More detailed information will be provided in a soils report that is being prepared by Hart Crowser and will be submitted to the City in January 1998. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. No. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. The filled areas would lessen the grades around the new pedestrian bridge. The fill in this area would require about 2,000 cubic yards of gravel borrow and topsoil as needed. The trail portion of the project would require filling slopes to create enough width for the proposed trail. Again, gravel borrow would most likely be used with topsoil as necessary. The fill for this portion of the project would be approximately 2,000 cubic yards. The Interurban Avenue bridge approaches would need to be widened and would require approximately 280 cubic yards of fill. Fill would be from an approved borrow site. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Erosion due to surface water runoff can be expected during construction of the project. Erosion is not expected to increase after the project is completed. 96006 \ Reports \ Sepa (10/31/97)1 jc 6 • • Evaluation for Agency Use Only g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? After project construction, there would be roughly 0.8 acre of new impervious surface area added to Interurban Avenue including the proposed trail. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be used to help prevent erosion and sedimentation during construction of the project. Some standard BMPs for sediment control are silt fences and straw bale dams. A temporary erosion and sediment control (TESC) plan would be prepared, and would require approval by the City of Tukwila prior to construction. Upon completion of construction, slopes would be seeded with standard erosion control grasses, and protected from erosion until the grasses are established. If necessary, additional erosion control measures (e.g., fiber matting) would be included as part of the project. The project would be designed to -minimize settlement of the trail after construction. 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Temporary dust, odors, and emissions from construction equipment and paving operations would be generated during construction. After construction of both the Interurban Bridge Widening - Green River and the Interurban Trail and Trail Bridge - Green River, traffic would be the major source of emissions. Emissions are expected to remain the same or possibly decrease with improved efficiency of the interchange. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. No. 96006 \ Reports \ Sepa (10/31/97) \ jc • • Evaluation for Agency Use Only c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: Emissions are not expected to increase due to this project, no mitigation is proposed. 3. Water a. Surface: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. The Green River is the principal water resource in the study area. The Green River flows northeast and is renamed the Duwamish River approximately 2 river miles below the existing Interurban Avenue Green River crossing. The Duwamish River flows into Elliott Bay on Puget Sound. The Green River has a water quality designation of Class A (Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington). 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. The bridge widening and construction of a new pedestrian bridge would occur over the Green River. Permanent bridge pier supports for the Interurban Ave bridge widening will be located above the ordinary high-water mark, but within the 100 -year floodplain. The bridge would be constructed across the river, and portions of the bridge approach roads would be within 200 feet of the river. The abutments for the trail bridge will be located outside the 100 year floodplain, but within 200 feet of the river. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. None. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No. 96006 \ Reports \ Sepa (10/31/97) \ jc 8 • • Evaluation for Agency Use Only 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. Yes, the bridge piers for the bridge widening will lie within the 100 -year floodplain. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No. b. Ground: 1) Will groundwater be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to groundwater? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No: 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals . . .; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. Does not apply. c. Water Runoff (including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. Storm water from the bridge widening will be collected into the existing storm drainage system for the roadway. Trail runoff would sheet flow onto surrounding areas. AH runoff would eventually reach the Green River. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. Yes. Soil from erosion and sedimentation during construction could enter surface waters. This would be minimized or precluded by the use of BMPs. 96006 \ Reports \ Sepa (10/31/97) \ jc 9 • • Evaluation for Agency Use Only The project also would increase the impervious surface area which may increase pollutants in the runoff, over the levels from the existing roadway. Typical stormwater pollutants found in road runoff include oil and grease, suspended and settleable sediments, nutrients, metals, organic compounds, and oxygen consuming substances. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: King County Surface Water Design Standards will be used for the design of any new or modified surface water drainage facilities for the project. 4. Plants a. Check or underline types of vegetation found on the site: deciduous tree; alder, maple, aspen, other evergreen tree; fir, cedar, pine, other shrubs grass pasture crop or grain wet soil plants; cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Small brush, grasses, blackberries, roadside vegetation, and approximately 28 trees would be removed. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Disturbed areas will be seeded. Additional plantings will include Raywood Ash, Douglas Fir, Western Red Cedar, California Wax Myrtle, Smooth Sumac, White Rockrose, Oregon Grape, and Boston Ivy. See landscape plans for specific locations. 5. Animals a. Underline any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: 96006 \ Reports \ Sepa (10/31/97) \jc 10 • 1 birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: Fresh and Marine Water Fowl (migratory and resident) mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaverother: muskrat and otter fish: bass, salmontrout, herring, shellfish, other: Evaluation for Agency Use Only b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. The project vicinity, is part of the Pacific Flyway migration route for waterfowl. The Green River is used by salmon. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Willow stakes would be added to the river bank to enhance wildlife habitat. 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Lighting for the pedestrian trail and the bridge widening will be electric. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: The proposed bicycle trail has the potential to reduce fuel consumption slightly by increasing the number of people bicycling to work. The added HOV bypass lane has the potential to promote better fuel economy for carpools due to the time savings when turning from Interurban Avenue to southbound 1-405. Fewer vehicles in each queue would lessen congestion for vehicles in both lanes, saving time and improving fuel economy. 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. 96006 \ Reports \ Sepa (10/31/97)1 jc 11 Evaluation for Agency Use Only The risk is not expected to increase due to this project. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. None are anticipated. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: None. b. Noise: 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? None. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Construction activities for both project phases would cause a temporary increase in noise levels. The Contractor will be required to comply with the City's Noise Ordinance. The bicycle trail is not expected to significantly increase noise levels after completion. The bridge widening is not expected to significantly increase noise levels after completion because traffic levels should not increase significantly. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: The mitigation measures proposed are only for construction. Mitigation includes limiting the hours of construction from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. with variances required for work outside those hours. 96006 \ Reports \ Sepa (10/31/97) \ jc 12 • • Evaluation for Agency Use Only 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Adjacent property northwest of Fort Dent Way is currently used as an industrial park. Interstate 405 is a six -lane roadway classified as an interstate. Interurban Avenue, Southcenter Boulevard, and SW Grady Way are all classified as principal arterials. Fort Dent Way is classified as a collector. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No. c. Describe any structures on the site. A U.S. Geological Survey stream gauging station is locatedadjacent to Interurban Avenue and the Green River. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? The U.S. Geological Survey stream gauging station may be relocated but would remain within the project area. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? Zoning on the southeast side of the bridge is Commercial/Light Industrial (C/LI) and Regional Commercial/Mixed Use (RCMU) on the northeast side of the bridge. The land to the west of the bridge is Washington State Department of Transportation right-of-way. f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? g. Street Right -Of -Way. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? The current shoreline master program designation is Urban according to the Comprehensive Plan and the Shoreline Master Plan. 96006 \ Reports \ Sepa (10/31/97) \ jc 13 • • Evaluation for Agency Use Only h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. Possible Class 3 steep slope on both sides of the river. However, the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy map does not indicate any environmentally sensitive areas in the project site. The geotechnical report will better define any potential hazard. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Not applicable. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: Not applicable. 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected landuses and plans, if any: The bicycle trail and trail bridge and Interurban Avenue bridge widening project follow the goals and policies identified in the City of Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan. The project design would comply with all of Tukwila's zoning code requirements and the Shoreline Master Program. 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low income housing. Not applicable. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: Not applicable. 96006 \ Reports \ Sepa (10/31/97)1 jc 14 • • 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? Evaluation for Agency Use Only The tallest structures would be a new bridge across the Green River, which would match the existing bridge elevation. The bridge structure itself would measure 4 feet 6 inches at the top of the bridge rail from the bottom of the bridge deck. The principal exterior building materials would be asphalt and concrete. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: An aesthetic design evaluation has been performed on the new bridge over the Green River. Some landscaping would be included along the river near the bridge. Material used for the bridges would be designed as aesthetically as possible within design limitations. The appearance of the new portion of the widened bridge would match the existing bridge. 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Increase in Tight and glare would be minor. Existing street lamps would need to be relocated. They would not produce more glare at night than is presently on-site now. Lights may be installed for the pedestrian trail under the 1-405 overpass, which could cause glare for local residents at night. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No. c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None. 960061 Reports 1 Sepa (10/31/97) \jc 15 • • Evaluation for Agency Use Only d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: Street lights would be directed toward the roadway and would be designed to minimize light directed toward adjacent properties. 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? The Interurban Trail is a multi -use trail linking King and Pierce County. The Green River Trail is part of the Interurban Trail network that follows the Green River within Tukwila. Fort Dent Park is a major recreational park with several types of sports fields. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: Not applicable. 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. The State of Washington Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation and the University of Washington Office of Public Archaeology reviewed available records in 1983 and noted that the project vicinity has a high potential for the occurrence of previously unidentified cultural resources. No significant cultural resources have been found to date or are likely to occur in the specific project area. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. No known archaeological resources are located within the project limits. However, due to the prevalence of Native Americans in the valley prior to settlement by Europeans, archaeological sites may be present. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: 960061 Reports \ Sepa (10/31/97) \ jc 16 • • Evaluation for Agency Use Only In the event that any artifacts or other resources are discovered during ground disturbing activities, the City would be informed immediately, and if needed, appropriate protection measures would be taken. 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. Several existing streets serve the site: Interurban Avenue, SW Grady Way, Southcenter Boulevard, 1-405, West Valley Highway, Fort Dent Way, and Monster Road (see figure 1 for road locations and project site). No new roads would be built as part of the project. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Yes. Park & Ride 108 is located at Interurban Avenue South and 52nd Avenue South, northwest of the project site. A northbound transit stop is located on Interurban Avenue just north of Fort Dent Way. Several bus routes are available in the project vicinity: Routes 124, 150, 154, 160, 163, and 280. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? No parking spaces would be created or eliminated. d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). No. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity ot) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. No. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. None. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: 96006 \ Reports \ Sepa (10/31/97) \jc 17 None. 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. Increased maintenance associated with new trail and bridges would be required. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. None are proposed. 16. Utilities a. Underline utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. Storm Drainage b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Storm drainage would need to be modified in some cases. Water and sewer mains may be modified / extended as necessary in compliance with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Power poles would need to be relocated out of the new trail. Phone lines in the existing bridge would need to be relocated. 96006 \ Reports \ Sepa (10/31/97)1 jc 18 Evaluation for Agency Use Only C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: Rt'fee-' -C Brian Shelton, P.E., City Engineer Date Submitted: 6 i 2� /g? 960061 Reports 1 Sepa (10/31/97) \ jc 19 • E. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR ALL PROJECT AND NON -PROJECT PROPOSALS • The objectives and the alternative means of reaching the objectives for a proposal will be helpful in reviewing the foregoing items of the Environmental Checklist. This information provides a general overall perspective of the proposed action in the context of the environmental information provided and the submitted plans, documents, supportive information, studies, etc. 1. What are the objective(s) of the proposal? Provide additional capacity and a travel time savings for HOVs turning left from northbound Interurban Avenue to the southbound on-ramp to 1-405. To complete a missing link in the Interurban Trail between 1-405 and the Green River Trail. This missing link includes crossing the Green River. The connection point of the Interurban Trail at 1-405 is not completed at this time. If this project is completed before the Interurban Trail under 1-405 is completed there would still be a missing section in the trail. 2. What are the alternative means of accomplishing these objectives? The freeway on-ramp is metered, with an HOV bypass lane. There are really no other feasible alternatives that would serve the purpose of providing a travel time advantage for HOV's. A variety of alignments for the trail have been evaluated, including one that uses the existing Interurban Avenue Bridge to cross the Green River. 3. Please compare the alternative means and indicate the preferred course of action: The question is not applicable for the bridge widening portion of the project. A separate pedestrian bridge was chosen because it provides a safer, more aesthetic route for bicycle and pedestrian traffic. 4. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? If so, what policies of the Plan? No. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s) are: N/A 96006 \ Reports \ Sepa (10/31/97) \ jc 20 Geotechnical Engineering Design Study Interurban Avenue Bridge Widening and Pedestrian Bridge Tukwila, Washington Prepared for Entranco Engineers February 9, 1998 J-4379 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION Page 1 PURPOSE, SCOPE, AND LIMITATIONS 1 Purpose 1 Scope 1 Limitations 2 PROJECT UNDERSTANDING 2 Current Site Conditions Interurban Avenue Bridge Widening Pedestrian Bridge SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 2 2 3 3 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 5 Site Geology 5 Generalized Subsurface Conditions 5 Groundwater 6 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 7 Site Preparation 7 Foundation Design Recommendations 8 Abutment Approach Fills 12 Retaining Walls and MSE Walls 15 Temporary Open Cuts 17 Structural Fill 17 Pavement Design Considerations 19 Seismic Considerations 20 Liquefaction Potential 20 RECOMMENDED ADDITIONAL GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES 21 Hart Crowser J-4379 Page i CONTENTS (Continued) FIGURES 1 Vicinity Map 2 Site and Exploration Plan 3 Generalized Subsurface Profile A -A' 4 Generalized Subsurface Profile B -B' 5 Laterally Loaded Piles in Elastic Subgrade, Deflection and Moment Criteria, Fixed -Headed Condition 6 Laterally Loaded Piles in Elastic Subgrade, Deflection and Moment Criteria, Free -Headed Condition 7 Pressure vs Deflection for Different Pile Cap Sizes APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATIONS METHODS AND ANALYSIS Explorations and Their Location The Use of Auger Borings Standard Penetration Test (SPT) Procedures Use of Shelby Tubes FIGURES A-1 A-2 through A-4 A-5 and A-6 Key to Exploration Logs Boring Logs B-1 through B-3 Boring Log HC -101 and HC -102 APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM Page A-1 A-1 A-2 A-2 Soil Classification B-1 Water Content Determinations B-1 Atterberg Limits (AL) B-1 Grain Size Analysis (GS) B-2 200 -Wash B-2 Consolidation Test (CN) B-2 Hart Crowser J-4379 Page ii CONTENTS (Continued) FIGURES B-1 Unified Soil Classification (USC) System B-2 and B-3 Grain Size Distribution Report B-4 through B-6 Liquid and Plastic Limits Test Report B-7 Consolidation Test Results APPENDIX C EXPLORATIONS BY OTHERS C-1 FIGURES C-1 through C-3 Boring Log H-1 through H-3 Hart Crowser J-4379 Page iii GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING DESIGN STUDY INTERURBAN AVENUE BRIDGE WIDENING AND PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE TUKWILA, WASHINGTON INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our subsurface exploration program, laboratory testing program, and geotechnical engineering analyses for the proposed Interurban Avenue Bridge Widening and Pedestrian Bridge in Tukwila, Washington. We have organized this report into several distinct sections. The first several pages summarize key conclusions and recommendations, and provide the main idea of the information discussed in the text. The main body of the report presents our design level results followed by the appendices, which present field and laboratory test results. PURPOSE, SCOPE, AND LIMITATIONS Purpose Scope The purpose of this study was to: ► Assess subsurface site conditions; ► Assist the structural engineer in establishing foundation design criteria; and ► Provide geotechnical recommendations related to design and construction. The scope of this study included: ► Advancing three borings for the bridge widening; ► Advancing two borings near the north and south abutment of the pedestrian bridge; ► Performing laboratory testing on collected soil samples; ► Identifying and analyzing the geotechnical engineering considerations; and ► Preparing this report. Hart Crowser 1-4379 Page 1 Limitations We completed this work in accordance with our proposal dated August 1, 1994, and modified on June 26, 1995, and August 6, 1997. Our report is for the exclusive use of Entranco Engineers, Inc., and their design consultants for specific application to the subject project and site. We completed this study in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical practices for the nature and conditions of the work completed in the same or similar localities, at the time the work was performed. We make no other warranty, express or implied. PROJECT UNDERSTANDING The Interurban Avenue South Bridge is located in Tukwila, Washington, as shown on the Vicinity Map, Figure 1. The northern portion of the bridge will be widened by about 16 feet to construct an HOV lane. The pedestrian bridge will be constructed north of the Interurban Avenue South Bridge. Current Site Conditions The existing Interurban Avenue bridge is 65 feet wide and 205 feet long. Along the north side of the river there is a paved pedestrian/bicycle path that goes under the bridge. Fort Dent Road is north of the bridge, and the Green River Interchange and Southcenter Boulevard are east of the bridge. Current site grades at the pedestrian bridge are generally flat with slopes adjacent to the river approaching 1.5H:1 V. Along the south side of the river there is a surface sump feature in the slope, near the proposed south abutment of the pedestrian bridge. Interurban Avenue Bridge Widening ► Bridge Loads. The foundation support for the structure will consist of four pile -supported piers. We recommend that no battered piles be used on this project. We understand the Toads on the foundation for the bridge widening on a per pier basis will be: Pier Dead Load in kips Live Load in kips Total Load in kips 1 380 60 440 2 450 100 550 3 450 100 550 4 380 60 440 Hart Crowser J-4379 Page 2 ► Bridge Walls. Earth retaining systems will be used at both sides of the bridge widening. ► Embankment. Prepared approach fills will range from 10 feet on the south side to up to 25 feet on the north side. ► Pavement Section Support. New pavement sections will be constructed on the approaches to the widened section of the bridge. Pedestrian Bridge ► Bridge Loads. The foundation support for the structure will consist of two pile -supported piers. We recommend that no battered piles be used on this project. We understand the loads on the foundation for the bridge widening on a per pier basis will be: Abutment Dead Load in kips Live Load in kips Total Load in kips South 840 80 920 North 840 80 920 ► Bridge Walls. Earth retaining system in the form of mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) walls will be used at both sides of the pedestrian bridge. ► Embankment. The existing abutment approach fill will be raised up to 15 feet on the south side and up to 10 feet on the north side. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The following is a summary of the principal conclusions and recommendations contained within this report. The subsequent sections of the report should be consulted for further discussion of each point, as well as for other recommendations. Subsurface Conditions A vicinity map and site and exploration plan are shown on Figures 1 and 2, respectively. ► Our elevations are based on Interchange Contour Grading Plan provided by Entranco Engineers, Inc. Site grades vary from about elevation 10 to 50 feet. Hart Crowser J-4379 Page 3 ► Generalized subsurface soils consist of some surficial fill over thick alluvial deposits of loose to dense sand with interlayers of soft silt over weathered sandstone. ► The soils in the upper 20 to 40 feet of the site soil profile are compressible and unsuitable for shallow foundations support. Foundation Design The alluvial soils encountered at the site during our exploration programs are not suitable for support of the bridge structures using shallow spread footings. Therefore, a deep pile foundation system is the most appropriate support system for both bridges. ► Use driven H -pile embedded at least 5 feet in the underlying sandstone and 10 feet into the underlying dense sand to support the bridge structures. ► We estimate pile lengths will range from 75 to 90 feet for the north piers and abutments and from 100 to 135 feet on the south piers and abutments. ► For driven H -piles, use an ultimate end bearing (compression) capacity limited to 500 tons per square foot (tsf) in the sandstone and 125 tsf in the dense sand. Friction along the pile length can be calculated by using an ultimate pile -soil friction of 1,000 pounds per square foot (psf). Total compressive capacity will be limited to the end bearing capacity and pile -soil friction combined. Total uplift capacity is limited singly to the pile -soil friction. Include a factor of safety of at least 2.5 to compute allowable pile - soil capacity. Other Recommendations Open Excavations. For planning purposes, we recommend temporary cut slopes of 1-1/2H:1V or flatter. Stability of the actual slope should be made the responsibility of the contractor. Pavement Design. For design of pavement section on compacted near grade soils, use a resistance value, R, of 60 (California Bearing Ration (CBR] of 25 percent). Seismic Considerations. Based on AASHTO Guide Specification for Seismic • Design of Highway Bridges, we recommend the following: Hart Crowser J-4379 Page 4 ► An acceleration coefficient, A, of 0.27; ► Soil Profile Type II; and ► Site coefficient, S, of 1.2 on Soil Profile Type II. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Site Geology Soil conditions at the site are based on soils encountered in five borings, designated B-1 through B-3 (Bridge Widening), HC -101, and HC -102 (Pedestrian Bridge) conducted by Hart Crowser, as well as three borings (H-1 through H-3) by others. The location of the explorations are shown on Figure 2 with interpretive logs presented in Appendix A. Results of laboratory testing are presented in Appendix B. Explorations conducted by others presented in Appendix C. Note that the Togs of exploration included in Appendix C were conducted by others not associated with Hart Crowser. We include them herein for convenience only and are not responsible for the accuracy or completeness of the information presented on the Togs. We generalized the subsurface conditions based on observations of soils encountered in our borings; however, the nature and extent of variation of the subsurface may not become evident until further exploration or construction of the site. If variations of the subsurface appear evident at the time of construction, it may be necessary to reevaluate the recommendation in this report. Soil conditions beneath the general project area are considered to be alluvial in nature, deposited by the Green River over a thousand years ago. The alluvial deposition has created an alternating sequence of clays, silts, sands, and gravels throughout the valley area. The near -surface soils within the alluvial valley are considered to be normally consolidated (the soils have never experienced a vertical Toad greater than is now existing). Therefore, the alluvial soils, particularly the silts, will consolidate under the application of new loads. The alluvial deposits are over weathered to sound sandstone bedrock (Renton Formation). Generalized Subsurface Conditions The following four distinct soil units are important to this project with generalized subsurface cross sections depicting them presented on Figures 3 and 4. Hart Crowser J-4379 Page 5 Groundwater Fill. A layer of fill exists over the site. This material may contain cobbles and boulders. The fill thickness we encountered ranged from about 2 to 12 feet and consisted of silt, sand, gravel, and cobbles with varying amounts of organics and wood pieces. The silt and organics will have the greatest effect on foundation design. Fill was not encountered at boring HC -101. Soft to Medium Stiff Clayey Silt. Soft to medium stiff clayey silt was encountered below the fill. The maximum silt thickness encountered was about 26 feet along the north side of the river and was not present in our explorations at the south side. This material is moderately compressible. Loose to Dense Sand. Loose to dense, silty sand was encountered in our borings below the fill on the south side and below the silt layer on the north side. At the bridge widening, the sand vary in thickness from about 90 to 110 feet near the north end of the Green River to 50 to 60 feet near the south end of the Green River. At the pedestrian bridge, the sand was encountered at a depth of 106 feet on the north side and at a depth of 110 feet on the south side, with thicknesses of 65 and 93, respectively. At the pedestrian bridge interlayers of sandy silt and silty sand were encountered in our borings below the sand at a depth of 91 feet on the north side and at a depth of 99 feet on the south side, with thicknesses of 15 and 11 feet, respectively. Weathered Sandstone and Siltstone. Below the sand, very dense weathered sandstone and siltstone were encountered. The top of the sandstone generally dips toward the south away from the adjacent hill. We expect that the piles for the bridge widening will bear in this unit. We did not encounter this material on the south side of the pedestrian bridge. We expect that the piles for the pedestrian bridge will bear in the weathered sandstone on the north side of the river and will bear on the dense sand on the south side. Groundwater levels observed during our explorations varied from depths of 13 to 31 feet below the ground surface. Water levels noted by others ranged from 15 to 25 feet below the ground surface. Water levels are shown on the cross sections, Figures 3 and 4. Water levels were measured at the times and under the conditions stated on the boring logs. Fluctuations in groundwater level may Hart Crowser J-4379 Page 6 occur due to variations in rainfall, temperature, and season. Also, soil conditions may influence the rate at which groundwater seeps into a boring during the time a boring stays open. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS This section of our report presents our conclusions and recommendations regarding the geotechnical aspects of foundation design and construction, site preparation, and retaining walls. We have developed our conclusions and recommendations based on our current understanding of the project. If the nature or location of the project is different than we have assumed, then Hart Crowser should be notified so we can change or confirm our recommendations. Site Preparation Initial preparation for pavement sections and abutment fills should include stripping of all surface vegetation and organic materials. We estimate the stripping depth of about 12 inches. This depth for stripping should be used for estimating purposes with actual required depths determined by soil conditions encountered during construction. The stripped soils may be stockpiled for use in landscape areas or be removed from the site. After stripping, the exposed subgrade soils should be proof -rolled with a heavy, vibratory compactor to delineate excessively soft areas. Areas observed as yielding should be excavated and filled with structural fill as outlined in the Structural Fill section. The purpose of replacing yielding subgrade soils is to facilitate compaction of the abutment fills. As a result of stripping, the exposed subgrade will be moisture -sensitive. Construction during the wet winter months will likely require immediate placement of clean, granular fill over the subgrade soils to provide a firm, non - yielding surface for embankment construction. Site preparation should provide a minimum of 2 feet of compacted structural fill below all pavement areas. Site preparation should also include protecting all slopes along the river. Protection could include riprap, interlocking concrete, or other stabilizing systems. Hart Crowser -4379 Page 7 Foundation Design Recommendations Design and installation criteria for driven H -piles are presented in the following sections, which address vertical, uplift, and lateral load capacity, as well as pile settlements and associated downdrag. Foundation Support Based on the subsurface materials encountered in the subsurface explorations and our experience at the adjacent bridge sites, the alluvial soils are not suitable for support of the bridge structure using shallow spread footings. In our opinion, excessive settlements prohibit the use of shallow foundations. Therefore, deep pile foundations consisting of piles tipped at least 5 feet into the bedrock or 10 feet into the dense native sand will be the most appropriate support system. Because we expect to encounter denser layers in the upper sand, the use of driven H -piles will assist in pile penetration through these layers. ► For the bridge widening, we expect the bearing layer (weathered sandstone) to be encountered within 70 to 80 feet below the ground surface on the north abutment and pier, and 95 to 125 feet on the south abutment and pier. Bridge Widening Pier Location Elevation Corresponding to Minimum Depth of Penetration in Feet Expected Final Pile Tip Elevation in Feet South Abutment -105 -110 South Pier -90 -95 North Pier -80 -85 North Abutment -60 -65 ► For the pedestrian bridge, we expect the bearing layers for the north abutment (weathered sandstone) and south abutment (dense sand) to be encountered within 125 and 120 feet below the ground surface, respectively. Pedestrian Bridge Pier Location Elevation Corresponding to Minimum Depth of Penetration in Feet Expected Final Pile Tip Elevation in Feet South Abutment -100 -110 North Abutment -100 -105 Hart Crowser J-4379 Page 8 ► Final tip elevations should be based on capacity calculated in the field using methods outlined in Section 6-05.3(11) D of the WSDOT/APWA Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction. These embedment depths are based on current subsurface information and assumes that the piles are embedded at least 5 feet in the top of bedrock or 10 feet into the dense sand. ► It is important to note that these tip elevations are based on extrapolation and interpolation between borings. Furthermore, the bedrock surface will tend to be erratic resulting in potentially significant differences in pile lengths over short distances. In summary, the depth to sandstone may be variable; therefore, we recommend that allowance be made for varying pile lengths. Vertical Capacities We have based our recommendations on our field explorations, laboratory test results, and experience with deep pile foundations in nearby areas. We make the following design recommendations for both the bridge widening and pedestrian bridge: ► For driven H -piles in sandstone, use an ultimate end bearing (compressive) capacity limited to 500 tsf. For driven H -piles in the dense sand (pedestrian bridge only), use an ultimate end bearing (compressive) capacity limited to 125 tsf. ► For driven H -piles, uplift capacity can be calculated by using an ultimate pile - soil friction of 1,000 psf. The effective shaft area is the circumscribed area of the pile. ► The total compressive soil capacity will be limited to the end bearing capacity and pile -soil friction combined. Total uplift capacity is limited singly to the pile -soil friction. Use a factor of safety of 2.5 for compressive loading and 2.0 for uplift. These factors can be increased by one-third for seismic, wind, or other short-term Toads. ► Settlement of the pile will be controlled by the elastic shortening of the pile due to the total load. ► Include the dead weight of the soil backfill above the pile cap in the total load. The dead weight is the volume of soil above the cap by projecting a plane away from the cap edge up at an angle of 1 H:2V. Use a soil unit weight of about 125 pcf. Hart Crowser J-4379 Page 9 ► When final pile size is determined, we recommend that a dynamic analysis of pile driving be performed to delineate anticipated driving stresses and pile resistance in the denser sand layers. Lateral Capacities Single Soil Layer System. Defections and bending moments due to lateral Toads on vertical piles can be calculated from the design charts presented on Figures 5 and 6 in addition to the following equations. Although we understand other methods of estimating lateral pile capacity are available, in our opinion, lateral pile capacity determination using these other methods will not provide a significant gain over the design procedure presented herein. Moment and Deflection Equations: Free -Headed Condition Fixed -Headed Condition Y = A, Pxx T 3+ B,, M T2 Y = A, P T3 El El El M = A,,, P.x T + B,,, M,, M = An, P T Where: Y = Deflection at any point at or below the pile cap, M = Moment at any point at or below the pile cap, P,„ = Shear applied to the pile at pile cap (x -x plane), M� = Moment applied to the pile at pile cap (x -x plane), Ay, By = Deflection coefficients from Figure 5 or 6, Am, Bm = Moment coefficients from Figure 5 or 6, El = Flexural stiffness of the pile, EI _ nh (J T = Relative stiffness factor — 1/5 nh = Constant of horizontal subgrade reaction, in pounds per cubic inch, and 2T = Assumed depth to point of zero deflection. Hart Crowser J-4379 Page 10 A value of nh equal to 5 pounds per square inch (psi) can be used. This value includes the effects reduced soil strengths during a seismic event. The pile cap, upon deflection, will contribute some lateral resistance to the foundation system. Pile Cap. The pile cap, upon deflection, will contribute some lateral resistance to the foundation system. Figure 7 is a plot of lateral resistance, in psf verses pile cap movement, in inches, for various pile cap sizes (depths). This information can be used to develop equivalent "springs" for the pile cap for use in structural frame analyses. These equivalent springs for the cap would be used in conjunction with the equivalent springs for the pile groups developed using the above criteria on lateral pile capacity. It should be noted that Figure 7 represents ultimate passive pressures. Pile Group Reductions. Pile groups behave differently than single piles. The resistance of two piles aligned in the direction of loading is Tess than sum of the resistance of two single piles. The pile in front reduces the resistance of the sod for the pile in back. Pile groups are defined as a series of piles tied together structurally in a pile cap. For pile groups, multiply kh or nh by the appropriate factor. Pile Spacing in Direction of Loading (B = Pile Diameter) Group Action Reduction Factor 8B 1.0 6B 0.7 4B 0.4 38 0.25 Recommendations ► Use a hammer with a minimum rated energy specified in Section .6-05.3(9)A of the 1998 Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction of WSDOT and APWA. ► Space the piles no closer than 3 pile diameters. The effective shaft area is the circumscribed area of the pile. The vertical pile capacity should be verified in the field based on a dynamic pile driving formula used in conjunction with the final few blows per inch. Such a formula should take into consideration various physical factors as energy of the Hart Crowser 1.4379 Page 1 1 hammer, the size and length of the pile materials, and modulus of elasticity of the pile materials. In our opinion, the appropriate formula would be the Danish (So) pile driving formula. However, we understand the state prefers the use of the Engineering News Record formula. Therefore, pile capacities should be determined in the field in accordance with Section 6-05.3(12) of the 1996 Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction by WSDOT\APWA. We recommend a factor of safety of 2.5 be applied to the ultimate compressive pile capacity as determined by field methods. Abutment Approach Fills Based on the existing subsurface information at the abutment approach fills and projected fill heights, we have estimated settlements at the pier locations caused by fill loading. Our understanding of fill thicknesses are presented in the PROJECT UNDERSTANDING section of this report. The addition of fill will induce stresses on the underlying compressible soils resulting in the following settlements: Location Settlement in Inches Bridge Widening - South Abutment Less than 1 Bridge Widening - North Abutment 4 to 6 Pedestrian Bridge - South Abutment Less than 1 Pedestrian Bridge - North Abutment 4 to 6 We expect the soils under fill areas to exhibit time -dependent consolidation with a significant portion occurring over a period of months. The amount of settlement is dependent on the thickness on the silt and day, as well as the thickness of the fill. In summary, settlements of more than about 1/2 inch will typically cause the soil around the existing bridge piles to settle inducing downdrag Toads on the piles. This is particularly important for batter piles, as the downdrag forces will be significant. The following sections outline options for the approaches for the bridge widening and pedestrian bridge. Design of all approach fills should include an articulated approach slab between the embankment and bridge abutment. This will allow for minor differential settlements that may occur between the fill embankment and the bridge pier. Hart Crowser J-4379 Page 12 Bridge Widening In our opinion, the anticipated downdrag Toads on the existing batter piles may damage piles as well as break the connection between the piles and pile cap. Important: We recommend that minimal filling occur at the bridge widening to avoid damaging downdrag on existing piles. Furthermore, with little or no filling, downdrag Toads should not occur on new piles. There are three alternatives in mitigating potential downdrag loads on existing piles: Curtain Walls. Curtain walls can be used to support the roadway structure to preclude the addition of fill. This results in mitigating potential downdrag forces on the batter piles. Provide Offset between Existing Bridge Embankment and New Fill. Our analyses indicate that providing a separation between the south abutment and new filling of 20 feet would mitigate potential settlements. However, the magnitude of filling required at the north abutment makes required offset distances approaching 50 feet impractical. Lightweight Fill. Lightweight fills such as styrofoam, would significantly reduce settlements to within tolerable magnitudes, resulting in decreased downdrag Toads. The amount of reduction in downdrag and settlement would depend on the unit weight, thickness, and extent of the lightweight fill. We can assist you with the analysis if you choose to use lightweight fill. Pedestrian Bridge We have estimated downdrag Toads resulting from fill placement for the south and north side of the Green River. There are three alternatives in mitigating downdrag loads for the pedestrian bridge abutments: Design New Vertical Piles to Carry Downdrag Forces. New vertical piles for driven H piles should be designed to carry downdrag forces (kips) on the order of 25p for the north side of the river, where p is the perimeter of the pile in feet. Net allowable soil/pile capacity can be determined by subtracting the downdrag from the ultimate compressive capacity, and then dividing the resultant by the recommended minimum factor of safety of 2.5. Phase Construction. Phase construction such that the abutment fills are placed and allowed to consolidate prior to pile installation. We recommend that four months be allowed in the construction schedule between fill placement and pile Hart Crowser J-4379 Page 13 driving. We also recommend that this be verified in the field through a settlement monitoring program. Surcharge. Surcharging will allow for accelerated consolidation before pile installation. Surcharging includes placing an earth fill over proposed final grades and allowing for the fill to remain in-place to induce consolidation. We estimate that 90 percent of the settlement will occur within about two months which would define the surcharge period. If surcharging is the preferred alternative for the pedestrian bridge, we make the following recommendations: ► The surcharge height should be 10 feet; ► The surcharge should remain in-place at full height for a minimum of two months; ► The full height of the surcharge should extend at least 10 feet beyond the edge of the abutments; and ► The surcharge edge should slope down at an angle no steeper than 1 H:1 V. Settlement Monitoring We make the following recommendations regarding settlement monitoring: ► Install settlement plates, at a minimum, one for every 10,000 square feet of area; ► Monitor surcharge settlement with conventional survey techniques. The settlement plates should be installed after preparing the subgrade prior to placing any fill; ► Initial settlement plate readings should be obtained by a surveyor immediately after placement of the plates and prior to placement of any fill. Obtain readings by standard differential leveling to the nearest 0.01 foot; ► During the first two weeks, obtain readings three times per week. After the first two weeks, the frequency may be reduced to twice per week. After four weeks, the frequency may be reduced further, to once per week, but only upon the recommendation of the geotechnical engineer after reviewing the survey data; and ► Retain Hart Crowser to review the settlement plate data on a regular basis as they are obtained. This will allow us to determine if the surcharge duration can be shortened or if it needs to be extended. Hart Crowser J-4379 Page 14 Retaining Walls and MSE Walls We understand that wall structures may be considered for design. Use of a cantilever wall system and MSE wall assumes that settlement will be within tolerable limits. We recommend that addition of fill and surcharging be completed prior to wall construction. For design on an earth retaining system, use the following geotechnical design parameters: ► If a conventional cantilevered type retaining was is used, bear the wall on at least 4 feet of compacted structural fill. ► Use an allowable maximum bearing pressure of no more than 2,500 psf. ► Compute the dead weight of the soil using a unit weight of 120 pcf. ► For compacted structural fill behind the wall, compute the mobilized active and at rest pressures using an equivalent fluid weight for the soil equal to 30 and 50 pcf, respectively. An appropriate ultimate passive resistance would be based on 350 pcf for level backfill. The use of active and passive pressures is appropriate if the base of the wall is allowed to yield a minimum 0.001 times its height. For a non -yielding wall, at rest condition should be used. ► Sliding friction between the base of the wall and the subgrade may be determined using an ultimate coefficient of friction of 0.5. Use a factor of safety of at least 1.5. ► Add additional lateral pressure equal to 5H for a yielding wall and 15H for a non -yielding wall should be added for seismic design of the wall, where H is the height of the wall. The seismic portion of the total lateral pressure should be assumed to act as a uniform pressure along the height of the wall.- ► If a conventional cantilevered wall is used, use Standard Plan D-4 for Road, Bridge and Municipal Construction to provide drainage for the wall. As a minimum, we recommend that backfill within 18 inches of the wall consist of clean (less than 3 percent by weight passing the No. 200 sieve, based on the minus 3/4 -inch fraction), well -graded sand or sand and gravel. Install weep holes at the base of the wall as per Standard Plan D-4. ► Include all surcharge loads in the wall design as per the standard plans. Hart Crowser J-4379 Page 15 We make the following additional recommendations for MSE walls: ► The length and spacing of reinforcing layers in the MSE wall need to be designed in such a way as to make the MSE wall stable against sliding, overturning, bearing capacity failure, and internal instability. ► All MSE walls should be designed for stability in both static and seismic events. ► We recommend the following soil parameters: Soil Type Cohesion in psf Angle of Internal Friction in degrees Total Unit Weight in pcf Recompacted on-site sand 0 30 120 Compacted select fill' 0 40 135 'Select fill should consist of a well -graded sand or sand and gravel. ► We recommend that backfill be placed and compacted behind the MSE walls in accordance with our recommendations for structural fill, as discussed in the Structural Fill section. Proper drainage is a critical aspect of retaining wall design. Hydrostatic pressure can accumulate behind an improperly drained retaining wall, increasing the load on the wall. We recommend the following for retaining wall drainage: ► Behind all MSE and concrete retaining walls, place at least 18 inches of free - draining, well -graded sand or sand and gravel which meets the gradation requirements defined in Section 9-03.13 of the WSDOT/APWA specifications. ► Drain the free -draining backfill with a minimum 4 -inch -diameter drain pipe at the base of the walls, which is sloped to carry the water to a sump or suitable discharge location. The drain pipe should have cleanouts and be surrounded by 6 inches of clean, well -graded sand and gravel. ► Prior to constructing the first lift of an MSE wall, we recommend placing a layer of drainage membrane over the subgrade soils. This drainage membrane should be tied into the drain pipes along the base of the wall. Hart Crowser J-4379 Page 16 ► If a retaining wall or MSE wall has a slope above and behind it, construct a drainage swale along the top of the wall to intercept and divert surface water. Temporary Open Cuts The "safe" slope for temporary cuts will depend on the following factors: ► The presence and quantity of water; ► Type and density of the soil; ► The depth of the cut; ► Surcharge loading adjacent to the cut (e.g., stockpiled material existing structures, or construction equipment); and ► The time of construction. Structural Fill For planning purposes, we suggest temporary cut slopes of 1-1/2H:1 V. Temporary excavation slopes should be protected for the elements and from surface water runoff. Suggested steepness of the slope should not be exceeded, but the recommendation does not mean the cut slope will be stable. Flatter slopes could be required, depending upon conditions at the time of construction. Because of the variables involved, actual slope values required for stability in temporary cut areas can only be estimated prior to construction. Stability of actual temporary cut slopes should be made the responsibility of the contractor since he is in control of the construction operation and is continuously present at the job to observe the nature and conditions of the subsurface materials encountered. The contractor also should be required to perform all excavations within federal, state, and local regulations. If open cutting is not practical, temporary shoring may be used to support the excavation side walls. Use of On-site Soils as Structural Fill The use of excavated soil at the sites for structural fill depends on the gradation and moisture content of the soils. Soils with more than about 5 percent fines Hart Crowser J-4379 Page 17 cannot be consistently compacted to a dense and non -yielding condition when the moisture content is significantly above or below optimum. Structural fill must also be free of organic and other deleterious material. The existing subgrade soils at the site consist of previously placed fill and native soils with organics and silts. The soils with organic matter and the silts are not suitable for reuse as structural fill. In our opinion, the existing fill and sandy native soils may be re -used during periods of dry weather, but are unsuitable for reuse in wet weather because of the high percentage of fines. If the excavated amount of suitable material for structural fill is less than the required for backfilling, we recommend a clean, well -graded sand and gravel fill be used, as described below. Selection of Imported Structural Fill All fill for the project should be placed in accordance with Section 2 of the 1998 WSDOT, APWA Standard Specifications. We provide the following additional recommendations where we feel clarification or importance of the item is warranted. ► Place all fill at the site as structural fill. Standard fills for the project should consist of the following material types contained in the WSDOT/APWA 1998 Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction: • Structural fill should conform to Gravel Borrow, Section 9-03.14(1) with the exception that material passing the No. 200 sieve should not exceed 5 percent based on the minus -3/4-inch fraction. • Fill behind walls should conform to Gravel Backfill for Walls, Section 9-03.12(2) with the exception that material passing the No. 200 sieve should not exceed 3 percent based on the minus -3/4-inch fraction. • Base course for roadways should conform to Crushed Surfacing, Base Course, Section 9-03.9(3). ► The moisture content of the fill should be controlled within two percent of the optimum moisture. Optimum moisture is the moisture content corresponding to the maximum dry density as defined by WSDOT Test No. 609. ► In wet subgrade areas, clean material with a gravel content (material coarser than a U.S. No. 4 sieve) of at least 30 to 35 percent may be necessary to provide adequate subgrade support for subsequent fill. Hart Crowser J-4379 Page 18 ► Prior to structural fill placement, remove disturbed, recompact loose, and dry all wet subgrade areas. Pavement Design Considerations The design of pavement sections includes various new pavement sections. Prepare all pavement areas as outlined in the SITE PREPARATION section. Based on our explorations, the support soils for pavement sections will be gravelly, silty sand. Characterization of this material for use as subgrade would be based on an R value of 55 to 60 (CBR of 20 to 25 percent). Recommended R values for imported fill will depend on soil gradation characteristics of the soil. If the gradation of the compacted fill is similar to the on-site soils which we have tested, a similar R value can be used for design purposes. Should the gradation of the import fill vary from the natural, on-site soils, subsequent laboratory testing should be accomplished once the borrow source has been identified to verify the validity of the R value used in design. However, for preliminary pavement design, we recommend using an estimated R value of 60 (CBR of 25 percent), assuming the material is compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by Section 2-03.3(14)D of the 1998 WSDOT/APWA Standard Specification for Road, Bridge and Municipal Construction. During excavation for our subsurface explorations, loose fill containing debris was encountered. After site preparation, we expect that most, if not all, of the fill material will have been removed. However, should any fill remain, it would need to be removed and replaced by compacted structural fill as previously stated. It is important that a qualified geotechnical engineer determine overexcavation depths for adequate support of the pavement sections. Pavement Drainage Considerations. For subsurface drainage of new pavement sections, we recommend the following: ► Install under -drains after the gravel base and/or ballast is in-place. ► Angle the drains from the alignment such that a minimum gradient on the drain is 0.5 percent. Orient the drains away from the median. ► Use a 4 -inch -diameter under -drain pipe. ► The pipe invert should be at least.12 inches below the base of the gravel base and/or ballast. The trench width should be no greater than 12 inches. Hart Crowser J-4379 Page 19 ► The trench should be excavated to avoid disturbance of the adjacent subgrade soils. Standard Plan B-10 contained in the Standard Plans for Road, Bridge and Municipal Construction should be incorporated into the above recommendations. Seismic Considerations Geotechnical information required for use of the 1983 AASHTO Guide Specifications for Seismic Design of Highway Bridges and 1991 addendum consists of essentially a determination of the acceleration coefficient, A; site effect; and site coefficient, S. We have utilized subsurface explorations for this project, additional information obtained from our files, and published geologic and exploration data on the subsurface conditions extending to considerable depth in the project area to determine these factors. Recommendations ► Use an acceleration coefficient, A, of 0.27; ► For site effects, use Soil Profile Type 11; and ► Use a site coefficient, S, of 1.2 based on Soil Profile Type II. Liquefaction Potential Liquefaction may occur during earthquakes when a saturated, cohesionless deposit loses its shear strength because of pore water pressure build-up within the soil mass. We analyzed this site potential to liquefy during design level earthquakes with magnitudes ranging from 6.75 to 7.5 and ground accelerations ranging from 0.2 to 0.32g (g = acceleration of gravity). For the bridge widening, we analyzed the sand layer (boring B-1) from a depth of 15 feet to 65 feet on the north side of the river, the factor of safety for liquefaction is 1.4. On the south side of the river, two sand units were encountered in boring H-2, the upper from a depth of 26 to 68 feet and the bottom layer from a depth of 72 to 91 feet, with factors of safety are 1.3 and 1.7, respectively. For the pedestrian bridge we analyzed the sand layer (boring HC -101) from a depth of 28 to 93 on the north side of the river, the factor of safety is 2.3. On the south side of the river we analyzed the sand (HC -102) layer, the factor of safety is 1.9. Hart Crowser J-4379 Page 20 Localized liquefaction within the upper 11 feet of the loose sands on the north and south sides will likely not occur because the water table is currently at 13 feet. However, this material is very loose, and if fluctuations in the groundwater level occur in the future, this zone may liquefy and result in some loss of lateral pile support and settlement. RECOMMENDED ADDITIONAL GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES Because of uncertainties regarding the depth to bedrock, we recommend that the first three production piles driven at a pier be used as test piles to delineate required pile lengths. Before construction begins, we recommend that Hart Crowser: ► Continue to meet with design team periodically as the design plans become more complete; ► Review proposed retaining wall and MSE wall design prior to start of final plans to estimate settlement and estimate factors of safety for stability. ► Review the final plans to see if any changes in fill thicknesses or other loadings have occurred and to estimate settlement responses; and ► Review the final plans and specifications to see that the geotechnical engineering recommendations are properly interpreted and implemented into the design. During the construction phase of the project, we recommend that a qualified geotechnical engineer observe the following activities: ► Installation of the piles, particularly the test piles; ► All subgrade preparation for fill placement and pavements; ► Placement and compaction of structural fill; and ► Other geotechnical considerations which may arise during course of construction. The purpose of these observation is to observe compliance with the design concepts, specifications, or recommendations and to allow design changes or evaluation of appropriate construction measures in the event that subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. Hart Crowser J-4379 Page 21 We trust that this report meets your needs. If you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance, please call at your earliest convenience. Sincerely, HART CROWSER, INC. 2 ILIANA ALVARADO Staff Geotechnical Engineer EXPIRES: Ph h b IV7 ALLEN L. JONES, P.E. Associate Geotechnical Engineer 4379\final_Inter(rpt).doc. ) EXPIRES ld - 3 -9 9' GARRY E. HORVITZ, P.E. Principal Geotechnical Engineer Hart Crowser J-4379 Page 22 Vicinity Map ....In,: i': -.V-. _ .,•'._ sr _ ... 7n•i s ••7:-•••. 1.'... riftil'a • . " • -. ' 1-•-.7 ,' • .''i',:'!'.i•194•`..74 1..' ,I4sr....4 • : !:. : .• . , ., , ..., . 1 • • .. •••'177•.. . . I • . . 11 P .•.)...o.P21. 5. 7:.'.1r •''; '. `,k, - ' ' ''• ' ,...;[.•,.. •.:,.., • 1 • ' :.'i-7).`••••4 . it: VI "÷:. -.%:45. Pr ...:;',.., 2 •-'4(.4!':,•'7.. 't . ' 'L' ' . .1-I—L.: . ' ' ;':"." . '*: .-: :-- 7;7' , • .77-•..7.--7.:•-••••,.....3-•-•••••-•-.• ••,•.-; -;•.•- .,-. ••W----''':-;:--;54.:4 ••,... 5:;.:1.:,.1....1.."i; \ ',...,.. ._...\ . :.. i ...., I • ';',"7'. •' ..,.!:- •• • . J.,1 \ i.;:4'...? ..-,....,, , . .. ., o...,.. .,..r ',;"....y".` ',%.,.'. : ' fU.ita ..-:?;4';',?.. .. • . '..rit,,s ,,-, 9,114 •• -;,-... 1 ' • .•,1/2:'.i-., ••• \ .1. I .: , ._- , .• • -:.:;,::,,..:;...-.. PI/5,17.'1/1N 'i-ti.r.c $7.1)-,..N.-.. • -•.-y-7.. ,-;- ,.; • ;,,,..-,...-...:._ ,......: • , 4 . . ... • ... . ,....?..s. -...P ,.-...r...,...,./ : -.: ....:. .. .-. ''.•:. 51; , ..,•,..ri.xr. .4.i ... i . , .0-..; ,...T.; : • ..f.S.,:',r0...• s-;" 1...• •.; .-- .. r-,. t ' • k •-. -t i -.-ts- ....,, - .,, -,,,.. :-. l• ; 41i1 i. ••77•:• r ,* • : • .' -7-7-.••-."-------•?.:..... sit ....!:...p. pi. ; .,.....4,,,?.. t(1'..1...c.1.;.:_ki,.•..,;,?,f;: .,,, • ,.-.'i-r, ..!"--. i 1, ...... ril:. ..:f.t.At`,:gi-i' , . , \••• !".": ; : ...., ,.....:., • . -.1> •,:73,..r., . i'. !•,• r.. w%..,;.:: . f ,•,: .. 11,,....... i. .,.•,,,, •,..: ..:-..---•:.--,;- .,•,......,. . . . . . .. .. - • • .• • ••• . .. . , .. T!•:_. -i 1 . .. • 4..41.: . -1•••-'7.•;:i";;r- *2 :'•,•••,.••:;,-3-; . • •• * - ''',1,,•• .. • • -:. - :;•••;'' .".• '-:-.': •- • . •i;•:" •.:-!':‘,:-..! . :::::iiv!ii li'':: :.• ",••••• .• •• r.- • - ' • • - • :\ • '..‘•:?‘:. • ... .• '' - •'..1 . •' ..... .•:..•:•;•'' . - • . ! j i .... y',., --.:z1; :.. .. .• ..- 5,c; • • ' - • ' V .:'o' • ..' r - -•\...q • . , . • ,........„1, • :4/ f i '7,,t-.-::;,-71"..=fir='. '' '',:-.4.:7;t.'..1,04'' '4' ' ' ‘''''''‘' . • ' • • . . . . • ,. • , • , i • - • 1 I i . t''''. ".....k."= •'4: -•.•4-%;.. , ' ~.. Jul ::.,..2,0._..0... ..., _..:,.. 41'4' - • .../ -.'.• i^ -• • .":-.P. .-... • - ..i.! '-'•-'1.A..11..1 ta ' R.X) • - i ",•"': `k'• • ' • .• • . , • . .. • - . • •• ''•' ,i; 's 'f • ••• 5•• Ir. • . .g.4 ••':. ..- og. • .• i.; • 1 • .• •- _ . f‘•;••r.- ;-. .•',.•-• - ";.).-- ..1:10ii"....:•fil.,rr •:•_,•••••••••• I ••••..Y-• • I,,,. -r-, • „ . • -.". • • :^ - 1 \: ,/ ; • : .• : 5 . • . • : i •.:; 41 ,--•••• . ;0 • - . • •cv.,7•,,:ki. .'. 1,- 1 • 7:-' . . I. qr• •• • .; ;•111 - - ---• i -•4 3.- . • -• 1•..=3..3.t.T-. U. :•....Iii•IM57•1. . • ;..' -• • !. ;, 7" '.::.'./.. '„t ,!:- -.1 l•- .1. '.....• .• ., - • .• ' .- i ; ?,,) f ; • ,. ,..,,: - t: IA :. 77 r,,,.7.-.,:t..., i .-z• :„,... • -s, • - --.- • ‘. - - - • - ... ' " •I:r, --.`-' -,,.,:l : ti; 7)i• 7. ' .S;t .i. • -` • i 1 . '•• C '.. ''' ' 1-•••• SITE ' 5 , :!•3 • . . . • • •• . t.tt, • „, , ••' • • • ; .117 • •C'..);•7.•:Alt . • ' ' •( ” . , . • • • ,t11 /81.1 • • ; ** • z . • • ! ; .ir:4:8t0.1 • . : • t . . 8-71i. ••••,•• 4, • • ,;•:,):.• ; • .• '; rid : • L • • • . •('" . ; I. • *.. , • - — i • 5 ••; .• c••••51;EW. • : 7-1 3r:I • w ••• 0 Scale in Feet 2000 4000 11 HARTCROVVSER J-4379 2/98 Figure 1 Generalized Subsurface Cross Section A -A' eit B-2 (53' NE H-1 (35' SW) FILL 6 Loose, silty SAND B-1 (20' NE) 2 _------------ 6 3 3 17ATD — 68 26 50 46 46 Dense 35 SAND and i "- GRAVEL Soft SILT Medium dense to dense, fine to medium SAND 28 19 10 / 50/4 50 50/4 ATD SANDSTONE \ \ \ \ N \ \ N N N \ \ N 4 5 3 3 4 17---- 40 28 30 29 21 34 39 19 13 ---9 GREEN RIVER Medium dense, silty, fine to medium SAND 9 9- -.9 9 H-3 (35' SW) ATD Medium dense, non -silty to __silty, fine to medium SAND H-2 (35' SW) Soft SILT —9 ATD FILL Loose, silty SAND Medium dense to dense, fine to medium SAND A' B-30 _ 40 (15' NE) ATD Loose to dense, silty SAND/medium stiff, sandy SILT ?— Very dense SAND — -? 18 17 11 22 6 5 7 10 — 20 — 16 — 56/9 — — 37 —26 —25 —31 —49 —35 — 39 0 ---20 ai c 0 0 w — 38 —40 —23 —61 9 —17 —39 —60 —34 — 35 — 5 28 —22 —9 - 50/5 1.20 wosIh.pcp Note: Contocts between soil units ore bosed upon interpolation between borings and represent our interpretation of subsurface conditions based on currently available dots. B-2 Boring Number (53' NE) Offset Distance and Direction J18 0 ATD Boring Location Standard Penetration Resistance in Blows per Foot Groundwater Level At Time of Drilling (ATD) 0 20 40 Scale in Feet 1I —80 100 HIUTICROWSER J-4379 2/98 Figure 3 Generalized Subsurface Cross Section B -B' 0 cn o 0 u Y B 40- 20 0- 20 0 -20 -40 N c c 0 -60 w -80 -100 -120 -140 HC -101 Very clayey SILT •Very silty, fine SAND — -9 9 Very soft to medium stiff, slightly sandy, organic SILT - ---AIlZ 72 45 60 47 37 39 41 62 21 51 9 GREEN RIVER Dense, silty, fine to medium SAND ----------------------------------------------- HC-1012 --------------------------------------------- 26 Dense, silty SAND with silt interbeds —30 — 36 — ----- 16 ----- ---- --------------------- — — — — — — — —39 Stiff, sandy SILT with sand interbeds — —46 14 40 —15 55 ---- ---- —241 Dense to very dense, silty SAND — —1! — — _ _ 9 38 —67 45 —691 — HC-1Q2 ATD '14 1— —26 —28 —26 — 36 —41 — 33 — 26 —41 — 35 —43 —`5z -j B' -9 50/5 50/4 — SANDSTONE —51 —48, —51 —47 —65 —�4 Silty, fine SAND (FILL) HC -102 Boring Number Boring Location 118 Standard Penetration Resistance in Blows per Foot ATD Groundwater Level At Time of Drilling (ATD) Note: Contocts between soil units are based upon interpolation between borings and represent our interpretation of subsurface conditions based on currently available data. 0 20 40 Scale in Feet NW /1 HARTCROWSER J-4379 2/98 Figure 4 0 Site and Exploration Plan N55.04'40"W N59`27'38"W NC &MI I 1. Akilak 1 __IA o■—�riasna ommlm�n,. n[ �:*_;;;ry�ll►.■-/�s� �iF it�l%Ill% ��,i��'i�w jff . j '��► , . iu INTERURBAN epi,' ., �c �I I _, ...Ili I BT - B-1 Boring Location and Number (Current Study) H-1 Boring Location and Number (Previous Study by others, 1962) .LAA,► Cross Section Location and Designation Note: Base map prepared from drawing provided by Entranco Engineers doted January 1998. 0 50 100 Q Scale in Feet Lr HARTCROVIISER J-4379 4/97 Figure 2 Coretormslheehead (a) Deflection and Moment Coefficients Deflection Coefficient, Ay 0 1 2 0 T p 2T 3T 4T s a p 2T 3T 4T -1 3 Deflection Coefficient, By -1 0 1 i 3 / 4&5 -0.1 0 0 T 0 2T 3T 4T Moment Coefficient, Am 0.2 0.4 0.6 0 8 1.0 .fr . ,......... .... ....... D=2 - '✓ . .... ... . D 2 T..... ..- T r r r' ./ 3 3 1 � r r I I 4i .� 4•' 5 / Deflection Coefficient, By -1 0 1 i 3 / 4&5 -0.1 0 0 T 0 2T 3T 4T Moment Coefficient, Am 0.2 0.4 0.6 0 8 1.0 -0.1 0 0 T r °- 2T m 0 (b) Typical Deflection and Moment Curves MOMENT m X DEFLECTION y 3T 4T Moment Coefficient, Bm 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 `1 D 2 ..- T r r r' ./ 3 i r r r .� 4•' / 5 1 5, -0.1 0 0 T r °- 2T m 0 (b) Typical Deflection and Moment Curves MOMENT m X DEFLECTION y 3T 4T Moment Coefficient, Bm 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 P,a Pile Shear at Ground Surface M Pile Moment at Ground Surface T Relative Stiffness Factor IMRTCROWSCR J-4379 2/98 Figure 5 D=2 T.... ..- 3 i''. /, /•4 5, P,a Pile Shear at Ground Surface M Pile Moment at Ground Surface T Relative Stiffness Factor IMRTCROWSCR J-4379 2/98 Figure 5 Laterally Loaded Piles in Elastic Subgrade Deflection and Moment Criteria Fixed -Headed Pile Condition (a) Deflection and Moment Coefficients Deflection Coefficient, Ay -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.1 0 T a 2T 3T 4T i D=2 - T 3 t4 Moment Coefficient, A, -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0 4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0 T 0 2T m 0 3T 4T D=2`, T 3 4 (b) Typical Deflection and Moment Curves X—re— LOAD Pxx Y Te— D Core[lorms\lix_head LOAD DEFLECTION MOMENT P� Pile Shear at Ground Surface T Relative Stiffness Factor 1r HARICROWSER J-4379 2/98 Figure 6 Pressure vs Deflection for Different Pile Cap Sizes Ultimate Pressure on Cap, Pp, in psf Ultimate 1800 1500 1200 900 600 300 0.5 10 15 20 Pile Cap Movement in Inches Core\torms\pres-dllc P' =Pp/H 25 30 H in Feet •----. 10 A---♦ 8 F----� 6 ♦ .. — .. ♦ 3 P= Resultant Passive Force Distributed over Area of the Side of Pile Cap (In Direction of Movement) If MB /ARI CRO WSi R J-4379 2/98 Figure 7 i / /-Y /. i. .• i it 0.5 10 15 20 Pile Cap Movement in Inches Core\torms\pres-dllc P' =Pp/H 25 30 H in Feet •----. 10 A---♦ 8 F----� 6 ♦ .. — .. ♦ 3 P= Resultant Passive Force Distributed over Area of the Side of Pile Cap (In Direction of Movement) If MB /ARI CRO WSi R J-4379 2/98 Figure 7 APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATION METHODS AND ANALYSIS Hart Crowser J-4379 APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATIONS METHODS AND ANALYSIS This appendix documents the processes Hart Crowser uses in determining the nature of the soils underlying the project site addressed by this report. The discussion includes information on the following subjects: ► Explorations and Their Location; ► The Use of Auger Borings; ► Standard Penetration Test (SPT) Procedures; and ► The Use of Shelby Tubes. Explorations and Their Location Subsurface explorations for this project include five test borings. The exploration logs within this appendix show our interpretation of the drilling, sampling, and testing data. They indicate the depth where the soils change. Note that the change may be gradual. In the field, we classified the samples taken from the explorations according to the methods presented on Figure A-1 - Key to Exploration Logs. This figure also provides a legend explaining the symbols and abbreviations used in the logs. Location of Explorations. Figure 2 shows the location of explorations, located by hand taping or pacing from existing physical features. The ground surface elevations at these locations were interpreted from elevations shown on Figure 2, base map by Entranco Inc. The method used determines the accuracy of the location and elevation of the explorations. The Use of Auger Borings With depths ranging from 83.5 to 149.5 feet below the ground surface, five hollow -stem auger borings, designated B-1 through B-3, HC -101 and HC -102, were drilled. The borings used a 3 -3/8 -inch inside diameter hollow -stem auger and were advanced with a truck -mounted drill rig subcontracted by Hart Crowser. The drilling was continuously observed by an engineering geologist from Hart Crowser. Detailed field logs were prepared of each boring. Using the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) and thin-walled Shelby tubes, we obtained samples at 2-1/2- to 5 -foot -depth intervals. The borings logs are presented on Figures A-2 through A-6 at the end of this appendix. Hart Crowser 1.4379 Page A-1 Standard Penetration Test (SPT) Procedures This test is an approximate measure of soil density and consistency. To be useful, the results must be used with engineering judgment in conjunction with other tests. The SPT (as described in ASTM D 1587) was used to obtain disturbed samples. This test employs a standard 2 -inch outside diameter split -spoon sampler. Using a 140 -pound hammer, free -falling 30 inches, the sampler is driven into the soil for 18 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler the last 12 inches only is the Standard Penetration Resistance. This resistance, or blow count, measures the relative density of granular soils and the consistency of cohesive soils. The blow counts are plotted on the boring logs at their respective sample depths. Soil samples are recovered from the split -barrel sampler, field classified, and placed into water tight jars. They are then taken to Hart Crowser's laboratory for further testing. In the Event of Hard Driving Occasionally very dense materials preclude driving the total 18 -inch sample. When this happens, the penetration resistance is entered on logs as follows: Penetration Tess than six inches. The log indicates the total number of blows over the number of inches of penetration. Penetration greater than six inches. The blow count noted on the log is the sum of the total number of blows completed after the first 6 inches of penetration. This sum is expressed over the number of inches driven that exceed the first 6 inches. The number of blows needed to drive the first six inches are not reported. For example, a blow count series of 12 blows for 6 inches, 30 blows for 6 inches, and 50 (the maximum number of blows counted within a 6 -inch increment for SPT) for 3 inches would be recorded as 80/9. Use of Shelby Tubes To obtain a relatively undisturbed sample for classification and testing in fine- grained soils, a 3 -inch -diameter thin walled steel (Shelby) tube sampler was pushed hydraulically below the auger. The tubes were sealed in the field and taken to our laboratory for extrusion and classification. Hart Crowser J-4379 Page A-2 ©ORINC.DWC Key to Exploration Logs Sample Description Classification of soils in this report is based on visual field and laboratory observations which moisture condition, groin size, and plasticity estimates and should not be construed to imply unless presented herein. Visual—manual classification methods of ASTM D 2488 were used as Soil descriptions consist of the following: Density/consistency, moisture, color, minor constituents, MAJOR CONSTITUENT, additional remarks. include density/consistency, field nor laboratory testing on identification guide. Density/Consistency Soil density/consistency in borings is related primarily to the Standard Penetration Resistance. Soil density/consistency in test pits is estimated based on visual observation and is presented parenthetically SAND or GRAVEL Density Very loose Loose Medium dense Dense Very dense Standard Penetration Resistance (N) in Blows/Foot 0 — 4 4 — 10 10 — 30 30 — 50 >50 SILT or CLAY Consistency Very soft Soft Medium stiff Stiff Very stiff Hard Standard Penetration Resistance (N) in Blows/Foot 0 — 2 2 — 4 4 — 8 8 — 15 15-30 >30 on the test pit togs. Approximate Shear Strength in TSF <0.125 0.125— 0.25 0.25 — 0.5 0.5 — 1.0 1.0 —2.0 >2.0 Moisture Dry Little perceptible moisture Damp Some perceptible moisture, probably ce!o.v cptirnum Moist Probably near optimum moisture content Wet Much perceptible moisture, probably cbeve optimum Legends Sampling Test Symbols BORING SAMPLES IX Split Spoon N Shelby Tube Cuttings Core Run No Sample Recovery P Tube Pushed, Not Driven TEST PIT SAMPLES Crab (Jar) Bog Shelby Tube Groundwater Grauncweter Level on Date (ATD) At Time of Drilling Observation Well Tip or Slotted Section Observations Surface Secl Q Groundwater Seepage z (Test Pits) Minor Constituents Not identified in description Shandy (clayey, silty, etc.) Clayey, silty, sandy, gravelly Very (clayey, silty, etc.) Es::mc:ed Percentage 0— 5 5-12 12-30 30 — 50 Test Symbols GS Grain Size Classification CN Consolidation TUU Triaxial Unconsolicated Undrcined TCU Triaxial Consolidated Undrained TCD Triaxial Consolidated Drained CU Unconfined Compression DS Direct Shear K Permeability PP Pocket Penetrometer Approximate Compressive Strength in TSF TV Torvane Approximate Shear Strength in TSF CBR California Bearing Ratio MD Moisture Density Relationship AL Atterberg Limits Water Content in Percent L— L ;quid Limit Natural Plastic Limit PI0 Photoionizction De actor Reading CA Chemical Analysis A 11 HARTCROWSER J-4379 2/98 Figure A-1 Boring Log B-1 Soil Descriptions Ground Surface Elevation in Feet: 21 Depth in Feet (Loose), moist, gray, silty, gravelly 'SAND. (FILL) Very loose, rnoist to wet, brown to mottled gray and brown, silty to very silty, fine to medium SAND. Soft, wet, gray, sandy SILT with silty, fine sand layers. Medium dense, wet, black, fine to medium SAND with some slightly silty and gravelly zones. Medium dense, wet, black, slightly silty, fine to medium SAND with occasional organic material. — 1 foot heave. — 1 foot heave. Medium dense, wet, block, fine to medium SAND with some silty, fine send zones. - E0 E T5 _10 -15 1-20 125 r E 130 L 135 E -40 45 - E50 1. Refer to Figure A-1 for explanation of descriptions cnd symbols. 2. Soil descriptions and stratum lines ore interpretive cnd actual changes may be gradual. 3. Gro._na water level, if indicated, is at time of drilling (AT2) or for Cate specified. Level may very wltn time. • 3l ow count mcy not be representative C__ to heave S-1 S-2 S-3 S-4 S-5 S-6 S-7 STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE Sample • Blows per Foot 1 2 5 10 20 s -a 1 S-9 S-11 S-12 5-13 S-14 • 5-15 • S-16 50 100 1 2 5 0 20 50 100 • 'Water Conten Percent t 1 LAB TESTS -AL GS ARTCR0 J-4379 7/95 Figure A-2 1/2 • • • • • M • C 11 _ I _-1-L.L_L_. / 11 •, r _ � _ r 1 k ' - • _ I • i _ //a 1 2 5 0 20 50 100 • 'Water Conten Percent t 1 LAB TESTS -AL GS ARTCR0 J-4379 7/95 Figure A-2 1/2 Boring Log B-1 Soil Descriptions Ground Surface Elevation in Feet: 21 Medium dense, wet, black, fine to medium SAND with some silty, fine sand zones. Depth in Feet (Dense), wet, gray, silty, fine gravelly SAND with shell fragments. Bottom of Boring at 83.5 Feet. Completed 7/18/95. 65 -70 -75 -80 _85 T90 -95 F 1100 105 110 -120 125 --130 1. Refer to Figure A-1 for explcnction of descriptions and symbols. 2. Soil descriptions and stratum lines ore interpretive and actucl chcnges may be grcdual. .3. Ground wcter leve!, if indicated, is at time of drilling (Aro) or for date specified. Level may very witn ;I me. Sample S-17 S-18 STANDARD PENETRATION LAB RESISTANCE TESTS • Slows per Foot 1 2 5 10 20 50 100 • L L F 1 2 5 10 20 50 CO • Wc:er Convent :n Percent oJ H : RTCRO J-4379 7/95 Figure A-2 2/2 Boring Log B-2 Soil Descriptions Ground Surface Elevation in Feet: 26 Depth in Feet Medium dense, moist, ton, silty, gravelly SAND. (FILL) Loose to very loose, moist to wet, brown, silty to very silty, fine SAND. Soft to medium stiff, wet, gray and brown mottled, sandy SILT. - Very silty, fine sandy layer. Medium dense to dense, wet, block, fine to medium SANG. — 2 feet hecve. — 6 inches heave. 2 feet heave. - 2.5 feet heave. 2 feet heave. Medium dense, wet, block, slightly silty, fine SAND. 0 5 _10 -15 20 T 2 5 E - A - TD 0 J � `35 40 STANDARD PENETRATION LAB RESISTANCE TESTS Sample • Blows per Foot 1 2 5 10 20 50 100 5-1 S-2 S-3 S-4 S-5 S-6 S-7 S-8 5-9 ■ S-10 IN S-11 ■ S-12 —- 45 —50 —55 60 —6 1. Refer to Figure A-1 for explanation of descriptions end symbols. 2. Soil descriptions and stratum lines ore interpretive and actual changes may be gradual. 3. Ground water revel, if indicated, is at time of drilling (AID) or for date specified. Level mcy very with z.^ -le. • 31ow count r.cy not be representative due 10 hecve • S-13 • 5-14 5-15 S-16 3 A, v • • 1 1 • • r L / •A • • J • A. 1 1 2 5 10 20 50 100 • ',vet_. Con en. :n Percent -AL H: 'TCR® J-4379 Figure A-3 7/95 1/2 Boring Log B-2 Soil Descriptions Ground Surface Elevation in Feet: 26 Depth in Feet —65 —70 —75 —80 —85 L -90 r L —1-95 ri00 +105 115 -120 —125 —130 1. Refer to Figure A-1 for explanation of descriptions ono' symbols. 2. Soil descriptions and stratum lines ore interpretive cnd actual changes may be greduci. 3. Ground wcter leve!, if indicated, is az time of ,,,rifling (.AID) or for date specified Leve! rr.cy vary with time. STANDARD PENETRATION LAB RESISTANCE TESTS Sample • Blows per Foot 1 2 5 10 20 50 100 S-17 S-18 S-19 S-20 S-21 I • • 50/4 i50/4 L L L 1 r F 1 2 5 10 20 50 100 • Woter Content in Percent p • RTCO Dgma J-4379 7/95 Figure A-3 2/2 Loose to medium dense, wet, gray, silty, fine SAND. Dense, wet, gray, silty, gravelly SAND with shell fragments. (Very dense), moist, light gray, highly weathered SANDSTONE. (Very dense), moist, grey, yellow, and green, highly weathered SANDSTONE. (Very dense), moist, light gray, highly weathered SANDSTONE. Bottom of Boring at 89.3 Feet. Completed 7/19/95. —65 —70 —75 —80 —85 L -90 r L —1-95 ri00 +105 115 -120 —125 —130 1. Refer to Figure A-1 for explanation of descriptions ono' symbols. 2. Soil descriptions and stratum lines ore interpretive cnd actual changes may be greduci. 3. Ground wcter leve!, if indicated, is az time of ,,,rifling (.AID) or for date specified Leve! rr.cy vary with time. STANDARD PENETRATION LAB RESISTANCE TESTS Sample • Blows per Foot 1 2 5 10 20 50 100 S-17 S-18 S-19 S-20 S-21 I • • 50/4 i50/4 L L L 1 r F 1 2 5 10 20 50 100 • Woter Content in Percent p • RTCO Dgma J-4379 7/95 Figure A-3 2/2 Boring Log B-3 Soil Descriptions Ground Surface Elevation in Feet: 34 Depth in Feet Medium dense, moist to wet, yellow—brown to gray—brown, silty to very silty, fine to medium SAND. (FILL) Loose, moist, grey, silty, fine SAND. Loose, moist, grey, red—brown mottled, silty, fine SAND. Medium der•.se,wet, blcck, fine to medium SAND with scattered wood frcgments. — 6 inches hecve. Medium dense to dense, wet, block, fine to meclum SAND. Scattered organic meterici. 0 5 _10 -i5 r2O 25 —30 [ -vD 35 —40 —45 —50 —55 —60 —65 1. Refer to Figure A-1 for explcnction of descriptions and aymaoIs. 2. Soil descnpticns and strctum Imes ore interpretive and dctucl cncnges mcy be grcducl. 3. Ground wcter level, if indicated, is ct time of dr:!'Jng (A TO) or far ec:e specified. Level rncy vary with time. ■ 2low coun. racy no; be red esentetive due to nedve. 5-1 S-2 S-3 5-4 5-5 S-6 5-7 5-9 5-9 ■ 5-10 5-11 S-12 S-13 S-14 S-15 5-16 STANDARD PENETRATION LAB RESISTANCE TESTS Saiptaaws per Foot 1 2 5 10 20 50 100 I 71 14 • • 1• L • • • ,f. • 1 56 /9 1 2 5 0 20 50 130 • 'Voter Ccn en in Percent p C7 —GS RTC • O J-4379 Figure A-4 7/95 1/2 Boring Log B-3 Soil Descriptions Ground Surface Elevation in Feet: 34 Depth in Feet —65 Medium dense, wet, block, slightly silty, fine SAND. Medium dense to dense, wet, grey, very silty, fine SAND. — 1 foot heave. Loose to medium dense, wet, gray, silty to very silty, fine SAND. - 6 inches heave. Very dense, wet. light gray, silty, fine to medium SAND with wood and shell fragments. 2 feet heave. Bottom of Boring at 123.8 Feet. Completed 7/20/95. S-17 _- 70 S-18 -75 S-19 -80 T85 r90 r I 5 T100 —105 r L II S-20 S-21 5-22 S-23 ■ S-24 5-25 - 110 F C ■-S-28 6 1125 120 ■ S-26 `S-27 —130 1. Refer to Figure A-1 for explanation of descriptions and symbols. 2. Soil descriptions and stratum lines are interpretive and actual changes may be gradual. 3. Ground water level, if indicated, is at time of drilling (A7D) or for date specified. Leve! may vary with ■ Blow count may not be represe. tative due to helve. STANDARD PENETRATION LAB RESISTANCEleTESTS S°ipr3lows per Foot 2 5 10 20 1 14 1 50 100 F • 1 L I •I i I - I - I _ • _ • it I _ 50/5 1 2 5 10 20 50 100 • Water Con•ent in Percent -GS H : RTCRO J-4379 Figure A-4 Man 7/95 2/2 Soil Descriptions Depth in Feet Medium stiff, moist to wet, gray, very clayey SILT. Loose, moist, brown, very silty, fine SANO. Very soft to medium stiff, brown, slightly sandy, organic SILT. — Gray and brown mottling. — Gray and black mottling. Medium dense, wet, black, very silty organic SAND with soft shell fragments. Grades to dense, medium to fine SAND. — Occasional brown, silty sand interbeds. — Occasional brown, silty sand interbeds - Very silty. 0 5 10 15 20 r30 35 40 —.45 —50 —55 —60 -65 —70 —75 1. Reser to Figure A -I for explanation of descriptions and symbols. 2. Soil descriptions and stratum Tines are interpretive and actual changes may De gradual. 3. Ground water level, if ir.4icateT. is at time of drilling (:.T0) or for ]are specified. Le/ei may vary with time. ATO Sample 5-1 5-2 5-3 5-4 5-5 5-5 S-7 5-3 5-g 5-10 5-n 5-12 5-13 5-14 1 1 1 1 5-15 II�' STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE • slows oer Foot I 2 5 i0 20 50 100 =r _ 1 1 • / • - "\• \\ E \` E _ • L L • - •i , j /1 i - _ - , r i 1 l� - - • I\ - - 1 111 _ E I �1 t 5 .0 20 50 • Nater iron ? , in Perron( 100 LAB TESTS GS AL H/.iR1 CROWS J-4379 3/97 Figure A-5 1/2 Boring Log HC -101 Soil Descriptions — Silty. Medium dense to dense, wet, dark gray, very silty, fine SAND. Stiff, wet, gray, very sandy SILT with sand interbeds. — Medium stiff. Dense to very dense, wet, gray, very silty SAND with abundant shell fragments and scattered wood. - Slightly silty. — Trace of (hard), light brown, clayey SILT. - Gravel layer. Hard, moist, blue-green, weathered CLAYSTONE. very dense, moist, grayish white, weathered SANDSTONE. Bottom of Boring at 133.3 Feet. Completed 3/6/97. Depth in Feet -75 T80 -85 90 T95 --105 L L —110 —115 L 1120 1 130 130 T140 —145 —150 1. Refer to Figure A -i for explanation of descriptions and symbols. 2. Soil descriptions and stratum lines are interpretive dna actual changes may be gradual. 3. Ground water !eves, if indicated. is at time of dnl!ing (ATO) or for date Specified. Level may vary with t:'me Sample 5-16 5-17 5-18 5-19 5-20 5-21 5-22 5-23 5-24 5-25 Ivy 5-26 5-27 STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE • Blows per Foot 2 5 10 20 50 100 L 1 • • • • IA 50/5 L • IA50/4 E r a 10 20 50 • 'water Content in Percent int 11 100 LAB TESTS GS /7AR t.ROWSER J-4379 3/97 Figure A -5 2/2 Boring Log HC -102 Soil Descriptions Approximate Ground Surface Elevation in Feet: 20 Very loose to medium dense, damp, brown, silty, fine SAND. (FILL) Depth in Feet 0 C-1 Medium dense, clomp, brown to black, slightly silty SAND. Loose to dense, wet, black, slightly silty, fine to medium SAND. Trace gravel and piece of wood. Fine to coarse sand layer with trace gravel. Trace wood. Dense, wet, black, slightly silty, fine SAND. Trace wood. Trace wood. Scattered wood. Dense, wet, black, fine SAND with half inch gray SILT interbeds. Sample S-1 -5 S-2 -10 0 ATD S-3 _15 S-4 -20 S-5 25 S-6 —30 S-7 35 —40 —45 —50 —55 —60 -65 S-8 1 1 1 1 1 S-9 n S-10 s-11 S-12 S-13 S-14 _70 -75 1. Refer to Figure A-1 for explanation of descriptions and symbols. n 2. Soil descriptions and stratum lines are interpretive and actual changes may be gradual. 3. Ground water level, if indicated, is at time of drilling (ATD) or for date specified. Level may vary with time. 0 5-15 STANDARD PENETRATION LAB RESISTANCE TESTS • Blows per Foot 1 2 5 10 20 50 100 • • • • • r 1 2 5 10 20 50 100 • Water Conten in Percent LI CS HARTCROWSER J-4379 1/96 Figure A-6 1/2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Boring Log HC -102 Soil Descriptions Depth in Feet T75 Dense to medium dense, wet, black, slightly silty, fine SAND. Trace organic material. Gray SILT interbeds. Grades to medium dense and silty. Stiff to very stiff, wet, dark gray -black, sandy SILT. - Medium to fine SAND layer. Very dense, wet, gray, slightly silty, fine to medium SAND with shell fragments. - Trace wood. Trace wood and organic material. - Trace organic material. Gravel layer. Bottom of Boring ct 149.5 Feet. Completed 1/20/98 80 85 _90 L95 k +100 X05 —120 -125 L —130 E 1135 140 T145 L —150 1. Refer to Figure A-1 for eYp'.cnction of descriptions and symbols. 2. Soil descriptions and stratum lines are interpretive and actual changes may be gradual. 3. Ground water level, if indicced, is at time of drilling (ATD) or for do:e. specified. Leve may vary with time. S-16 S-17 S-18 5-19 STANDARD PENETRATION LAB RESISTANCE TESTS So Ap1iows per Foot 1 2 5 10 20 2 S -20A X S-21 5-22 pin S -23A Jj S-24 Inj 5-25 S-26 S-27 5-28 S-29 S-30 S-31 50 100 1 2 5 10 20 50 • water Content in Percent f� 11 100 CN iiARTCROWSER J-4379 1/96 Figure A-6 2/2 • A / • • ; APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM Hart Crowser J•4379 APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM A laboratory testing program was performed for this study to evaluate the basic index and geotechnical engineering properties of the site soils. Disturbed samples were tested. The tests performed and the procedures followed are outlined below. Soil Classification Field Observation and Laboratory Analysis. Soil samples from the explorations were visually classified in the field and then taken to our laboratory where the classifications were verified in a relatively controlled laboratory environment. Field and laboratory observations include, moisture condition, and grain size and plasticity estimates. The classifications of selected samples were checked by laboratory tests such as Atterberg limits determinations and grain size analyses. Classifications were made in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification (USC) System, ASTM D 2487, as presented on Figure B-1. Water Content Determinations Water contents were determined for most samples recovered in the explorations in general accordance with ASTM D 2216, as soon as possible following their arrival in our laboratory. The results of these tests are plotted at the respective sample depth on the exploration logs. In addition, water contents are routinely determined for samples subjected to other testing. These are also presented on the exploration logs. Atterberg Limits (AL) We determined Atterberg limits for selected fine-grained soil samples. The liquid limit and plastic limit were determined in general accordance with ASTM D 4318-84. The results of the Atterberg limits analyses and the plasticity characteristics are summarized in the Liquid and Plastic Limits Test Report, Figure B-2. This relates the plasticity index (liquid limit minus the plastic limit) to the liquid limit. The results of the Atterberg limits tests are also shown graphically on the boring logs. Hart Crowser J-43 79 Page B-1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Unified Soil Classification (USC) System Soil Grain Size Size of Opening In Inches Number of Mesh per Inch (US Standard) Grain Size in Millimetres cv gymN OCI C13 R N ▪ .-- (7 .- C7 C 0 0 0 0 • 8 N O 0 0 0 0 1 1 I I 1. I I I I I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 :I11 1 I I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ; 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 ILI1 1 11 111' l l 11 11 1 11 1 1 1 p1 S 8 8 m � O 0 O m (0 v CO N O8 O N ^ O O O O CV O 8 O 8 S S O Grain Size in Millimetres COBBLES GRAVEL SAND SILT and CLAY Coarse -Grained Soils Fine -Grained Soils Coarse -Grained Soils G W G P Clean GRAVEL <5% fines G M G C S W S P GRAVEL with >12% fines Clean SAND <5% fines S M S C SAND with >12% fines GRAVEL >50% coarse fraction larger than No. 4 SAND >50% coarse fraction smaller than No. 4 Coarse -Grained Soils >50% larger than No. 200 sieve /D601>4 for G W ((030)2 1 GWandSW —I &1<. I<3 \010/>6 for S W '\ D X D / 10 60. G P and S P Clean GRAVEL or SAND not meeting requirements for G W and S W G M and S M Atterberg limits below A line with PI <4 G C and S C Atterberg limits above A Line with PI >7 * Coarse-grained soils with percentage of fines between 5 and 12 are considered borderline cases required use of dual symbols. D10, D30, and 060 are the particles diameter of which 10, 30, and 60 percent, respectively, of the soil weight are finer. Fine -Grained Soils ML CL OL MH CH OH Pt SILT I CLAY Organic SILT CLAY Organic Highly Organic Soils Soils with Liquid Limit <50% Soils with Liquid Limit >50% Fine -Grained Soils >50% smaller than No. 200 sieve 60 50 40 30 ca a 20 Cole] 10 CL -CL-ML 1 10 20 CH 30 50 Liquid Limit MHorOH 1 1 I 60 70 80 90 100 11 HfIRTCROWSCR J-4379 2/98 Figure B-1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 f 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r PLASTICITY INDEX i --i �- iv w A in rn ca 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 . AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT CH or OH CL or OL HATCHED AREA IS ML -CL A =_�I1��11 • ML or OL MH or OH 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 BO 90 100 LIQUID LIMIT Location + Description LL PL PI -200 ASTM D 2487-90 • B-1, S-5 Depth: 12.5'-14.0' Nat. W.C. = 34% 36 28 8 ML, Silt A 8-2, S-8 Depth: 23.5'-25.0' Nat.W.C. = 42% 42 30 12 ML, Silt Remarks: Project: Interurban Client: Location: J-4379 8/22/95 Figure B-4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT an PLASTICITY INDEX O N W -P, (.71 C O O 0 O C CH or OH CL or OL HATCHED AREA IS ML -CL /_L,l_ 77L1_ •L or OL MH or OH v 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 LIQUID LIMIT Location + Description LL PL PI -200 ASTM D 2487-90 • HC -102, P-21 Depth 103 to 105.5 feet 34 26 8 Remarks: Project: Interurban Avenue Pedestrian Bridge Client: Location: Seattle, Washington arm IIIJ-4379-02 1/27/98 `'. CROWSER Figure B-6 Axial Strain 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% Coeff of Consolidation (ft2/day) 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Stress (tons/ft2) 1/32 1/16 1/8 1/4 1/2 1 2 4 8 16 32 • / • / / • • Expl. No. Sample No. Depth (ft) W.C. Atterberg Limit Before I After LL PL PI Dry Density (pcf) USC Description HC -102 P-21 104.2 Ft. 31% 29% 31 29 2 88 pcf ML Silt Remarks: /WIN J-4379-02 1/27/98 ILIII Figure B-7 HARTCROw.sFR APPENDIX C EXPLORATIONS BY OTHERS Hart Crowser J•4379 APPENDIX C EXPLORATIONS BY OTHERS Figures C-1 through C-3 present Togs of borings drilled by others. These logs are presented for reference and Hart Crowser is not responsible for the accuracy nor completeness of the information presented on the logs. Hart Crowser J-4379 Page C-1 Boring Log H-1 64-40....1 el 2 0.0 isr•Ov. ..1....y C/.3. r .4"0.-10.0403. ,r /Al Qea,/s.+.-s. <Z' -- Il /r.r...r+ € /..mk Choy - J l •Stmt i w.'4 • Qrwcks si..ee C.•./. tr."' 11- G•�jr ,s.7f ...I ..T076,C/ 3r. C���.S.j.1 Grp..... aro.? drwn:alb C4 $Q- e..c L"L a..y ,_..,, city, C�wc O+riE G...j !G. ry Witmero Cry Ping" Sr.., ,v. I/. ,s.....If e,i "4..1. f. Ca..rst A..I Imo. 5.,.+s4,r- n+ A•Iartie+-lad. t? - 1 4;:ir� �!,/ 6r.�• 5.0•14y Ute. •••0•44 3 ow Zi +//s. ..-7 Z 3- 3400410.~ 00'00,01.01 2/ #10-s. .4144r.- 01610 ;41,,,, V.1 Tt rar 7 NOL E NQ N-/ .i . • l e , 0.01 •.. ! Note: Log provided by Washington State Department of Transportaion. 1/ HARTCRO WSER J-4379 2/98 Figure C-1 Boring Log H-2 r e- ...510041411 - /.r S.w.. s/Ai 1 j Z L- b.�.,...� a,. , .:.r S. "'Owe y� .sLree b......rc O...r Qil%, Fiewr SME /3' 7. 4-10 s41w mow.. -.A O Ji "Alm" .%I • / 1l.? 10,04 /..i T....i 1 ./sem.. . r.1lir < •.••• ewe .iwi/ d�...• JeN, S/i�/..1.Ce..v...o/ Crowe 42...1.O (0,..4 N1ww+ 1,4.'"''''v,y)lwe ....s1 hwti.siolt/r,I..:ir.t/s ✓C.w ... $.+/ so.ott 50..// A#' .v,I/ .•0 »'a d. R1 11 —Lco.we, 0.0.i.o.,.j, a...? .411.00,0000s2 1 14.1 (.rows'} C....sI) ILCcw•.oeel 0_-4 (O.•wy ~wow. pZ) F..w Je•.I Direr bheod.I w.,.Aw a....~.-. .of owl. Te { sve C.es=. Jw.•! w•FA i,..r/ .r..a..l./ wood/ GS 1 sty 1-. 4 , ,, .e/ 1 7%-wer41 .!,,•.. G..w...rl. Lcar.....e'f L)... -t o -w.. fl......j '(l,... «,...••(! I r.w:.. r+v:,,)( %%wf d .s.....d1 /I,......0.f t7 T"-•••) 3i/I N► . 401441wl). r sr. `cL......e0 Clow -Ac 0...7 P. 1.08vd s...•d. �.� 7. -war 177`.. o.__I_ v/ LiO+.r On!~ Powiaaf b t r``-C....fer Dr* o. -w., 01.;...- Alp "'Wow: .5......0/ 46.0- (r.... 0ow.••w/ ......,.4101. J. 301 . — Je•.►. w/.rrM•/. Lt r Jaw... 01....tw.� rot OAL.n4..d 5i/j LL t 4.T 41 Tiwe'� off Ir........ Pow....../ :10 L.00.. x`lenv-6.vi..d dn.% L'....".7 es.ii/f. Loos. Ow -t G...r J./0j. 11~ 3w./ 1"~—toeostl wwf0/. L.w-� .1 jivtf (/)...0.v,. 1.. r.....). Sfr-^Y Lw.. cu.,* d.�.. /.•w Sw,.wy S,I/ lnf..-tel 10+4A L...�...-1 e/ sal i 77.... s....r L.na.. JI ze Gr.M.t1 G•+Dir .s.4. Sr... .4 a f/j i----- M....,►! a/%/ i. Cw�a a 40~ 1 or .1 F.,v O•1w.•r 0141 Sli11.11.. Ce...o.t I a. -s. /-,,. J d w,04. s....SA.tJ 0101 .Y...II .4 .#i -I4 ./ r/arae..P.411,Goo.-J• .5...►/ 1.4 2 „r T•,.c'. .! F.... lJ..r..... ,fes-�L a.cw...ard./ a.m../ 111‘...... G.-w•./.r, I O.. -.i. 1,-..f.4.1 or.. Q�Ce•. Jwe./ /no /r' �� L. f,•.. O� .7.�r. w.rf. .. _ (O•- w►. r /S Q..#..— o.'w.✓ J /w -*. ,.t /A..- 04... TL ST •NOL. NC. / rL Z s•�. IS/ -Os - a» * ,041,41. Note: Log provided by Washington State Department of Transportaion. 11 / /AR CRO WS R J-4379 2/98 Figure . C-2 Boring Log H-3 b � u. 11. C .� '4080... 80'0......s.1' ern, ':8080. %.... s...- �c...airs ear /a.- 80-..7 .s-...[ . 2_ Isr 4140•441404140•444r..1 �+rQ a4s..'......i j.7 A:~ •...-.' .7..►•A r J_ • Tt�A p,....„...,,, I*.�.�..�•�4 !� 1 ..4P Ir::lf. �'—• J G."r.,c pi O•Np7 .i.;.`. AN Ops „a..s ! tea•.. O‘.w...ry - J..4„Ii. 4.1.80,.....e.il, i ....r. rw, ii... J..../ I ng.vww..,.., Istmou.- 47.1 7• CT isolfi ar O„. Bim', v...-7 /.+r I /a..r J..e-A.t.1dlir 1.0.s • 77+80.► 3i/1 a►.rK T7.... p.T�,.,40 L+�►anr� rti Lira Er, L .,.. G.-... J a"'�' J# ! 7)..er /7ra.`7. wti✓ T. -..'I% 41/4 I•fte ... - • OSe a4..•.." a l Of D<'cC.s~.r/ P .r Gam.•.W/ 1 J. : w. ars. T.v.T..+ttic. Ca.iN.-a! 4/801, .1...,03, C..1.41,466.04 ...:LG sa..rr__-d ..•••.ri:....: -11~.1 dr aA..P .-.-.1 J. -.mss, .... / accuratalw.me Bb.../r.- - sa...J d....V.-. iod'.L`e ./ .3i...a.�...r /►.�I7.•ek - rs"A4 Occrs•...r/ Sir..- G:e�e��ra..� _$—..s.v...- sir ZQ S' p�..V� r►.-.r.� l w.r.+.i+�.r`r wlGr► Qar•j� I.4At Ta ST HOLE NO. H-3 Sia. /JO • QJ - G. Note: Log provided by Washington State Department of Transportaion. 17111 HARTCROWSER J-4379 2/98 Figure C-3 55530,8. INTERURBAN AVE. A> 01.5095 IftEvAlEnt 7/02 7st u-sm. l27,141.4 (41.1. LT ) 33.66 33,0 J3.(2 77.7. PT ApSTA. 07,52.9 ;63.3 .7.) 32.76 P-30 T-29.57, L ;WERRA. OA> 1 0097 DENT 0.7 0/65 1;a141.11 ranrc831438=218NALQ11 6/ 6:111•1111111MMIMMIIIIMIIIEFEE1 Gal=112=621MANINIIMIA R-50 R. r 9.T. L 78,1 t./. 1,-„• „„ 5 -rte - 0 CONSTRUCTION NOTES 3. 5. 6. 9. 3. 0. 13. tf. /5. 0 1. 3. 4 5. 03.1STRICT CEMENT COANCRETE &FIRER CM ANO CuTTER PER LOT. STD. PLAN CONSTRECT MEAT CONCRETE TRANS106 ARP flat MAO. sawn 0-514 /77..1:./ 557.0 1.7.; MANN E6e7567 SEENALN. 731404 CUTTER RENONE APPANDINATELy 60 FEET EcSTRO CDR& awsma Mee CON:RETE MPS RAAR PER COT. 573. PLAN 4S-72. PLANE 970450/5 PANENENT a- 0 6777 .000 TO 0 AS 57084 evo 65.444 07060 V5T08 Con AND airrfR. SEE TrPCAL RUMAT =ANS MET 0 FOR "WACO. MERL.. CONSTRICT CEMENT CONOIETE &OEM. PER CAT. STA PUN 85-0. REPLACE ENISTRO SARUM SEINER ARO An =ER. ADAM' RNA ELEVATON TO GRAM SAROITTNIO PANENENT T OFF OF FACE OF CUTTER OR Al FOOLLAK. SEE PLAN 5(17 77/73.07 ADONto 501066, 8307 C FOR FULL 0079 PANEWENT SECTOAS ARSTA. 07,75.04 AMMO CASE MD CONEP PER CAT. 573. 6544 65-7. REMOAE EnSTRO SOMA. ;AMMO ORD *007 600 TAANSITON MAP. /WOW& POTMLE LOCATOR. NERTICAL ADOSTRENT AT 7767 MR. oRAN, Deem WATER NOTE V -STA 727,93 10 al. POTNOLE AND LOCATE ERSTINO Kr TEL 007044 0(9 64064 BATE /747/7(AND re AN =Pura 10 The NEST. *5747/ 670 10 AC0F4 ;UTE vALvE, 1002. FLou INCREASER AND ly 22 I/2; AMR BEND TO EAST or NNE EreTNc TEE 0-574. 128444 TAROT N.STRAR 45 0(0755307. (057277 67 LF a455 52 OA POE FoR RATER NAN.. SEE DETAT ON SNEET 0-514. 12646 r50.5. M.I. AVTAGLE AND LOCATE EcSTRO ;2- TEE. INSTALL NAV 0. GATE NALvE AND Te o ODURRO. ADJUST LTISTRO RATER vALvE 800 TO OWE MSTA 728,674 W., 1.1) INSTALL 0- 22 1/7 NOW 6700 8715 TARDST LILCO AND 303 077 CUSS 52 3.7 APE FOR WATER MIN DAN. AELOCATE ENFSTINO 7007 AfraNANT 10 BAAX OF SIDERALA NCIDONO ATORAN T.ENTENSON. AUX TO IN. 5TOFM1 DRAINAGE NOTES .1 SEE PO4F;LE ON nos SHEET FOR COCA BASIN MO STOAN DANN PME 507E5 8. AENCRE EN6766 CATON DAWN. A 'PICO AND 4BA4006 USW lr MACAU( PRE. V. PERM ETTSTRO VORA DARN APE. ffNERAL NOTES I. CATON DMIN STATO, AND OFFSET COLONS NEASENIED TO FACE OF COS SEE DETAIL Ref, 173. 2. CONSTRICT CATER BASIN TTPE AIM VANDARD PRAM AND CRATE PER 071 OF 76704.5 STANDARD PLANS C9-25 AND 0S-3. 3. 50=C"‘; *45065 /72.20 7.7.1222. n OF - PER O A. 5E1 01450EL0ATC0 SDNIND ANO ALLLaNNAToN Auld FOR scow AND LIMNIAIRE REMOVAL AND/OR Anourch. 5. MOVE 106700 TREES ANDFCIR 9eN/8 NITRO =MOO LANTS. 6. REACRE 106740 STRAYS NAIRN MULCT OM. 20 0 0 20 65 NORM P-20 ESTiBMS MC. P-0 • AAA *Ale. MAMA IMO CO MU ',it mmut N.A.D. 83 ROTATED TO N.S.D.O,T. PLAN 9.0.5.0. 29 FIAZCAr:'''•:7742I ;;212 rmr i"="Lim an. 14. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING STREETS WATER SEWER SURFACE WATER BUILDINGM MAINTENENCE PLAN AND PROFILE IU -STA. 124.50 TO IU-STA.128.50 SEC. 2 , .23 ..4 E W. MER89A4 TRY. SEE sneer TI FON LETARS PROPOSED ROM A 'DINERS 97 TOTAL CURVE DATA PJ. STATINS 417570 116.9407 DELTA YI)'S0' TAICINT 09465' CURVE DATA DELTA 5711.50' RIDES 04150 *10075 615.19' 5 14. SPIRAL DATA A 1 -*/1 -EXSnq GROUND .L.GN8(87 re £X5110 T 0 µ Ls P Q VNSTRUCTION NOTES CONSTIWT. L'EMW comma B.9v£R CURB i RATER PER Car, 510. PLAN E. 0.0NSTNLCT CEMENT CGGETE 90EEAU PER 1.0.T. 570. PUT 85-17. 3. PLANE 9/*IM99S PAVEMENT *t O COPE GO 917TER TO O. 0 0 9171. 4 REMOVE (X85160 0.149 9 UVULA MELLOW 8* 9 RAV. 5. SEE 7702. RUMAT 5ELTME5 57(475 Cr FOP PA51ME.XT OVERLAY. 6. REMOVE APPROXIMATELY EE FEET OF EXISTING 91ARDCUC 400*91O MOWS. 7. SEE SMUT WI FOR MOW WOEOAG 6(74415. & S[E 9211 W9 FOR PAVEMENT OVERLAP OV B6DE. A ALMS &MEOWS PAVEMENT y! O PAVEMENT SEAT TO 0. 0 PO 9171. 0. (4578 servo SECO 0/1000 75 Lr RLI/0110. N. ALO,, 74 V 451C41TC EMARTR7 70 FACT V 1015706 "NOM *44OE" I2. SEE 7 0CAL MAORAT SEC1040 5REE7 9 FOR NU 0(475 PAVEMENT 51(701. *1. 49057 1X5100 OAS 5855E V RSV 5980 E8(POY. *4 ADR51 EXISTING 7ELEPAG81 mum= 81 OS our. I7. 5*Rd TTTIN,O PAVEMENT Y OFF V FACE OF ITER 0R AT F0 UNE. .K POTENTIAL POTTOL1 LOCATION. *7. 177045E EXSTAIG 90(8µN 99M04G 909 RAV MD TRANS/TM RAV. Q WATER NOTE$ 1. SEE WATER ICU 1 CH WET 14 FOR WATER MAO DATA E. ALO DEAD MAN AS5E19LY PER DEAD MY LE7AG WET 3. ]..5-151. 1!15 at LI., ADD &WEE A5 4891 PER 00.1. STD. 0 STORM DRAINAGE NOTES *-1 541 57049 ORAD PAYEE ON Tres 9217 FOR CATS* 6MSw AND STORY DANE 885 TOTES GENERAL NOTES L Cams 8490 STOW AND OFFSET CAnO/TS WARMED TO FATE O` 0189 SEE WAIL ON Deer 3. 1. 456579.07 CATCH BASTE nee 7 8175 Sr44OAA* FRAME AND OTE PEP 071 CHT 75XW*A STANDARD PLANS 05.15 AND 0S-5. A SEE CNAMEUZATGM, SWING MID 5LUY*A7EW PLUS FDR 50AIDG ANO 2.019µR! REMOVAL AND/8X 'TELECOM 4. mom 1XSTNE TREES ATOV9, 9p18S NRN9 CLEA*W0 LM71 S. REMOVE (X15190 STEVE WORM PRWEC7 0075. M. IU79W, www O 7569 Y 11100 M �fEY1WYYA NrYL•yeA.0 01,006. our IVO. war us1*X> �a,Poa .77040 u N.A.D. 85 ROTATED TO 8.5.0.0.7. PLAN N.G.V.D. 29 7052. C -E0 PO 0 0 PO 01 5187. 7.1 1 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING STREETS WATER SEWER SURFACE WATER BUILDINCM MAINTENENCE ! N T R A N C O INTERURBAN AVENUE BRIDGE PLAN AND PROFILE IU -STA 128.50 TO IU-STA.132.00 MATCH LINE SEE SHEET 2 MHWM RIVER ENVIRONMENT -70 iI Ao A76-- SO0 T o A oiv LOW IMPACT ENVIRONMENT° N r 36 111 14111 2" 0 I� FUTURE FAMILY FUN CENTER 24"d PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING STREETS WATER SEWER PARKS BUILDING ale rho &dud pal ^9 ddHm ENTRANCOO INTERURBAN AVENUE BRIDGE EXISTING CONDITIONS reRSICIIS LOW IMPACT ENVIRONMENT PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING STREETS WATER SEWER PARKS BUILDING MATCH LINE SEE SHEET / ma +an defied pal e5 'eNLLra EIITRANCO430 INTERURBAN AVENUE BRIDGE EXISTING CONDITIONS m 4 remora MATCH LINE SEE SHEET 4 MHWM IMPACT ENVIRONMENT A0 FgS1176-1/S2,0&/1/0 M6-1/ 00� T OA 04/, <42,),), co PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING STREETS WATER SEWER PARKS BUILDING Ll_ FUTURE FAMILY FUN CENTER INTERURBAN AVENUE BRIDGE PROPOSED WORK te mows 1 3 l J LOW IMPACT ENVIRONMENT RIVER ENVIRONMENT MHWM CRE -FN R/VFR 6n nn MATCH LINE SEE SHEET 3 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 4 ENGINEERING STREETS WATER SEWER PARKS BUILDING arur ENTRANCOammo ow PROPOSED WORK DJ data mmol ll 95 Se 40' PEDESTRIAN RAILING i kTa 6' MIN. CLEAR 2:I MAX. SLOPE EXISTING GROUNDLINE 12' RIGHT OF TRAIL ALIGNMENT APPROX. FINISH GRADE FOR FAMILY FUN CENTER GRADING JrREFERENCE UNE ELEVATION 0.0 EL. 7.8 100 YR Y.R./. IIX) 0- 12.100 CFS W.S. EL 22.3 ELEVATION PEDESTRIAN TRA/L BRIDGE GRADE ELEVATIONS SHOWN AT RIGHT EDGE OF DECK FOR EMBANKMENT DETAILS A7 BRIDGE ENDS SEE STD. PLAN 11-9 SCALE: Y - 30' 60' 40' I Ig •W gl 1`,"_o WI h 3 ^ I C N I? O 0 zl NN 3 C. T I 'it' ,/ 1- m h BRIDGE „ V: RAILING I TYPE BP I U@0 OM 1 2d MAX. SLOPE 15 CONCRETE PEDESTRIAN BARRIER 40' N1 1 0. O f mG �I I R. o WI WI ^ WI U' ' C' 1 3I N I OI I � YIN. VERT. CDR. 1 t J__1J '-24 MAX. SLOPE EXISTING GROUNDUNE 47' LEFT OF INTERURBAN AVE. 1 7- ////----REFERENCE UNE ELEVATKIN 0.0 EXIST. 7RAIL EL 7.8 ` 100 78. Y.R.I. UXl 0 - 12,100 CFS KS. EL 22.3 ELEVATION EXIST. BRIDGE WIDENING GRADE ELEVATIONS SHOWN AT LEET EDGE OF ROADWAY DECK ELEVATION SHOWN 15 REFLECTED FOR EMBANKMENT DET NES AT BRIDGE ENDS SEE 5T D. PLAN H-9 SCALE: r - JO' PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING STREETS WATER SEWER PARKS BUILDING O .-•N T R cN O NT INTERURBAN AVENUE BRIDGE CROSS SECTIONS ar 5 LEGEND EXISTING TREE—SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS. EXISTING TREES ARE PREDOMINATELY ALDER SPECIES. gyp• NORTH a7 / CONIFER .DECIDUOUS -T PLANTING .047 A' SLOP QJ O EXISTING — FENCE TO, REMAIN EXISTING. TRAIL TO REMAIN/ //'s... �' / 90' SHRUB PLA A SLOPE ETAIL RETAINING WALLSEE".;CIVIL DRAWINGS%''' BRIDGE—SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS LANDSCAPE PLANTING IN TI-4IS AREA WILL BE SHOWN ON FUTURE SUBMITTAL FOR FAMILY FUN CENTER. RETAINING WALL—SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS EXISTING VEGETATION ALONG SHORELINE OUTSIDE OF CONSTRUCTION LIMITS SHALL REMAIN UNDISTURBED—SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING STREETS WATER SEWER PARKS BUILDING E IU TTF MA/N i 0 0 n.aoa ® w x:4,110, 415.70 RAS LW I.vmn.e Mone, INTERURBAN AVENUE BRIDGE PLANTING PLAN i4 L-1 1of 4 COLUN R TiOUGN CERTIFICATE No. 316 MATCHLINE-SEE SHEET L-1 EXISTING TREES •LOCATED BETWEEN FILL LINE 'AND SIDEWALK SHALL BE /REMOVED. REMOVED. SEE CIVIL `DRAWINGS. z LEGEND• n -EXISTING TREE -SEE CIVIL - DRAWINGS. i EXISTING TREES ARE PREDOMINATELY ALDER SPECIES. 1 7 1 1 ■ • 1 • 1 SCALE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING STREETS MATER SEWER PARKS BUILDING eigid him dedd Irol& Wit to 64 2/1281 uta UF/93 4130 !1 TT BRAN K 0 0 w .mr ONO WAWA INOSGPi ,+cwrt0 INTERURBAN AVENUE BRIDGE PLANTING PLAN 0 b4 Rag L -2s 2or4 —Minh R. NOU01 CER1610.ATE NO. 31$ MATE. ss111(. PLANT SCHEDULE SYM. QTY. SCIENTIFIC/COMMON NAME EATAVATATO Hou Beds & Baird Inc. LAJOSCIPS A OIREcmRE PLANNING URBAN CESIGN TREES Platanus acerifolia 'Bloodgood'/ BLOODGOOD PLANETREE Pseudotsuga menziesii/ DOUGLAS FIR Thuja plicata/ WESTERN RED CEDAR SHRUBS * Myrica californica/ CALIFORNIA WAX MYRTLE * Mahonia aquifolium/ OREGON GRAPE GROUNDCOVERS * EROSION CONTROL HYDROSEED W/ WILDFLOWERS PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SIZE/REMARKS 1 3/4" Cal.; B&B.; Full & well branched w/ straight trunk & central leader. 6'-7' Ht./B&B.; Full & Well branched w/ straight trunk & central leader. Not sheared. 6'-7' Ht./B&B.; Full & well branched w/ straight trunk central leader. 24" Ht.; Full, well branched & well rooted. 24" Ht.; Full, well branched & well rooted. Plant ®' 3'—O" O.C. triangular spacing. SEE SPECIFICATIONS ENGINEERING STREETS WATER SEWER PARKS BUILDING b4 WAS dm. 7/2/18 &Eclsd JN 7/7/98 rim prat dr 4130 E Or TTrdEAM OE 6 0 x60+0+ Wr 114:11k 1000 ABBREVIATIONS AC. CAL. CONST. CONT. DIA. DRWG. EA. EXIST'G. GAL. HT. MAX. QTY. PT. B&B ACRE AND AT CALIBER CONSTRUCTION CONTAINER DIAMETER DRAWING EACH EXISTING GALLON HEIGHT MAXIMUM QUANTITY POINT BALLED AND BURLAPPED SCHED S.F. SPEC'S. SYM. TYP. w/ BLVD. GALV. A. �GGt IN. MULTI O.C. PLANT NOTES SCHEDULE SQUARE FOOT SPECIFICATIONS SYMBOL TYPICAL WITH BOULEVARD GALVANIZED GAUGE NUMBER MINIMUM MULTIPLE ON CENTER 1. ANY DISCREPANCIES WITH THE DRAWINGS AND/OR SPEC'S AND SITE CONDITIONS SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE ENGINEER PRIOR TO PROCEEDING WITH CONSTRUCTION. 2. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR LOCATING UTILITIES PRIOR TO BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION. 3. AVOID DAMAGE ABOVE & BELOW GROUND TO EXISTING VEGETATION TO REMAIN. SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS. 4. PLANT LOCATIONS SHOWN ON PLAN ARE APPROXIMATE. CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD STAKE ALL PLANTING LOCATIONS ON SITE AND VERIFY WITH ENGINEER AND ADJACENT — PROPERTY OWNER PRIOR TO PLANTING. 5. SURFACE SCARIFY ALL NEW SLOPES PRIOR TO SEEDING. SPAS Pr ALCISPAILD 1.00se../ec MO/MGT INTERURBAN AVENUE BRIDGE PLANTING SHEDULE & NOTES dttt 0050E 1 'L-9 J 3of4 CF TV1U1E w. 3i6 ++DATE++ ++r lwE + ++FILE++ 2" MULCH DEPTH. KEEP MULCH LAYER LAYER AWAY FROM FOLIAGE. EXISTING SOIL SECTION PLANTING HOL TO BE 6" LARGER THAN DIA. OF ROOTBALL FOR GROUNDCOVER,• 12" LARGER THAN DIA. OF ROOTBALL FOR SHRUBS. TOP OF ROOT CROWN TO BE 1" HIGHER THAN FINISH GRADE. WATER RING OPEN BURLAP AROUND TRUNK. CUT & REMOVE TOP 1/3 OF - BURLAP. FERTILIZER (TYP.) BACKFILL W/ 2/3 PLANTING SOIL & 1/3 EXISTING SOIL. THOROUGHLY WATER SETTLE. SHRUB PLANTING ON A SLOPE DETAIL NOT TO SCALE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE cwNOJC VRBBW Dma PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING STREETS WATER SEWER PARKS BUILDING NOTE: 1. MULCH TREE RING SHALL BE 30" DIA. 2. STAKES FOR TREES UP TO AND INCLUDING 1-3/4" CAL. SHALL BE #5 RE -BAR. PLACE RE -BAR STAKE ON WINDWARD SIDE. OF TREE 5'-0' STAKE TOP (NO PLAN - 1/2" DIA. SOFT DARK GREEN RUBBER HOSE. OVERLAP HOSE. TREE TRUNK MUST NOT BE IN CONTACT W/ RE -BAR OR WIRE. OF REBAR BURRS) TREE TRUNK TREE TRUNK WRAP WIRE ENDS AROUND RE -BAR (1) RE -BAR SECURE TREE TRUNK TO STAKE W/ 3 RUBBER HOSES & 12 GA. GALV. WIRE. TURN BACK WIRE ENDS INTO STAKE TO AVOID SHARP BURRS. TOP OF ROOT CROWN TO BE 1" HIGHER THAN FINISH GRADE. FINISH GRADE WATER RING 2" MULCH NOTE: THE BARK MULCH TREE RING SHALL 36" GREATER BE 30" DIAMETER. THAN DIA. OF' SECTION ROOTBALL 3:1 MAX. SLOPE FERTILIZER (TYP.) OPEN BURLAP AROUND TRUNK. CUT & REMOVE TOP 1/3 OF BURLAP. BACKFILL W/ 2/3 PLANTING SOIL & 1/3 EXISTING SOIL. THOROUGHLY WATER SETTLE. CONIFER/DECIDUOUS TREE PLANTING ON A SLOPE DETAIL NOT TO SCALE E A IT RHA A`1 DE [l 0 A DanmA ODom VAN Cf AZOSYCNED LANDSCAPE R CERTV1CAIE ND. Sia INTERURBAN AVENUE BRIDGE PLANTING DETAILS Ate J